Táticas: Um Guia Prático para Boas Conversas de Testemunho

 

PREFÁCIO

Quando estava a apresentar um programa de TV nacional chamado Fé Sob Fogo, que apresentava pequenos debates sobre temas espirituais, decidi convidar o autor bestseller de livros da Nova Era, Deepak Chopra, para ser um dos participantes. O tema seria o futuro da fé. Para oferecer uma perspetiva diferente, pedi ao meu amigo Greg Koukl que representasse o cristianismo. A ideia era gravá-los a interagir durante cerca de 15 minutos via satélite, o formato típico de um segmento do programa. Esse plano rapidamente foi por água abaixo.

O Greg era simplesmente tão envolvente e tão eficaz a apontar as falhas na visão do mundo de Chopra que tive de manter as câmaras ligadas. Vez após vez, Greg conseguia expor o raciocínio defeituoso por detrás da teologia amorfa de Chopra e corrigir as suas afirmações imprecisas sobre Jesus e a Bíblia. Quando dei por mim, já tínhamos consumido toda a hora do programa. Chopra — que estava habituado a expressar as suas opiniões sem contestação na TV e na rádio — ficou completamente derrotado e desanimado.

Assim que a gravação terminou, virei-me para o meu produtor. “Aquilo”, disse eu, “foi um exemplo clássico de como defender o cristianismo”. Pela única vez em todo o percurso do nosso programa, decidimos dedicar um programa inteiro à exibição de um debate.

Porque é que o Greg teve tanto sucesso naquele encontro? Não foi beligerante nem desagradável. Não levantou a voz nem iniciou um sermão. Em vez disso, utilizou o tipo de tática que descreve neste livro: utilizar com persuasão perguntas-chave e outras técnicas para orientar a conversa e revelar as premissas falhadas e as contradições ocultas nas posições de outra pessoa.

É isso que torna este livro único. Existem muitos recursos que ajudam os cristãos a compreender aquilo em que acreditam e porque acreditam – e certamente que estes recursos são de vital importância. Mas é igualmente crucial saber como se envolver num diálogo significativo com um céptico ou uma pessoa de outro ponto de vista religioso. É este território que este livro aborda com sagacidade e sabedoria, recorrendo a exemplos da própria vida de Greg e a insights obtidos ao longo dos seus anos de ministério frutífero.

Tive o privilégio de ter muitos dos principais apologistas cristãos do país, ou defensores da fé, no meu programa — e o Greg esteve sempre entre os melhores. Quando precisamos de alguém para lidar com alguns dos desafios mais difíceis que o cristianismo enfrenta para o filme baseado no meu livro "Em Defesa da Fé", recorremos novamente a Greg — e mais uma vez ele personificou o que significa ser um embaixador preparado para Cristo.

Na verdade, Greg é tão bom que os cristãos podem dizer: "Bem, ele é realmente inteligente, excepcionalmente talentoso e tem um mestrado neste tipo de coisas. Nunca conseguiria fazer o que ele faz". Mas podem — com um pouco de ajuda. Uma das grandes paixões de Greg tem sido treinar os cristãos comuns sobre como podem usar táticas fáceis de entender para dissecar a visão do mundo de outra pessoa e defender a causa do cristianismo. Há bastante tempo que conduz seminários sobre este tema — e estou muito grato por ele ter agora condensado o seu melhor material neste volume útil e valioso.

Vivemos numa época em que o ateísmo militante está em ascensão. O cristianismo está a ser atacado, não apenas por livros best-sellers, professores universitários céticos e documentários de TV, mas cada vez mais por vizinhos e colegas de trabalho. Tornou-se uma gafe

afirmar que apenas uma fé conduz a Deus, que o Novo Testamento é fidedigno ou que qualquer princípio do neodarwinismo possa ser posto em causa.

A cada dia, aumentam as probabilidades de se encontrar numa conversa com alguém que desvaloriza o cristianismo como um anacronismo repleto de mitologia. O que fará quando essa pessoa o encurralar e menosprezar as suas crenças? Como apresentará de forma persuasiva “a razão da esperança que há em vós” (1 Pedro 3:15)? Como aproveitará as oportunidades para iniciar conversas espirituais potencialmente transformadoras com as pessoas que encontrar?

Abriu o livro certo. Deixe que o Greg seja o seu mentor enquanto domina novas abordagens para falar com outras pessoas sobre Jesus. Como Greg gosta de dizer: “Não precisas de bater home runs. Nem precisas de chegar à base. Basta ir ao bastão — envolver outras pessoas numa conversa amigável — já chega.”

Isto significa que todos podem embarcar nesta aventura. Desfrute da vida inteira de estudo e experiência de Greg, equipando-se agora — para que Deus o possa usar “em tempo oportuno e inoportuno” (2 Timóteo 4:2) para ser o seu embaixador num mundo espiritualmente confuso.

— Lee Strobel, autor de Em Defesa do Verdadeiro Jesus

PARTE UM

O PLANO DE JOGO

QUE A SUA FALA SEJA SEMPRE AGRADÁVEL, TEMPERADA, POR ASSIM, COM SAL, PARA QUE SAIBA COMO DEVE RESPONDER A CADA UM. (Colossenses 4:6)

— Paulo, o Apóstolo

CAPÍTULO UM

DIPLOMACIA OU DIA D?

A apologética tem uma reputação questionável entre os não-aficionados. Por definição, os apologistas defendem a fé. Combatem ideias falsas. Destroem especulações levantadas contra o conhecimento de Deus.

Para muitas pessoas, isto soa a palavras de guerra: Cerquem os carros. Levantem a ponte levadiça. Fixem as baionetas. Carreguem as armas. Preparar, apontar, fogo. Não é, pois, de estranhar que crentes e descrentes associem a apologética ao conflito. Os defensores não dialogam. Eles lutam.

Além do problema da imagem, os apologistas enfrentam outra barreira. A verdade é que a persuasão eficaz no século XXI exige mais do que ter as respostas certas. É muito fácil para os pós-modernos ignorarem os nossos factos, negarem as nossas afirmações ou simplesmente bocejarem e afastarem-se da linha que traçamos na areia.

Mas, por vezes, não se afastam. Em vez disso, mantêm-se firmes e lutam. Entramos na batalha apenas para enfrentar uma barragem que não conseguimos suportar. Ignoramos uma das primeiras regras de empenhamento: Nunca faça um ataque frontal contra uma força superior. Apanhados desprevenidos, encolhemos o rabo entre as pernas e recuamos — talvez para sempre.

Gostaria de sugerir um “caminho mais excelente”. Jesus disse que quando se encontrar como uma ovelha no meio de lobos, seja inocente, mas prudente (Mateus 10:16). Mesmo que haja uma guerra real a acontecer,¹ os nossos engajamentos devem parecer-se mais com a diplomacia do que com o Dia D.

Neste livro, gostaria de o ensinar a ser diplomático. Quero sugerir um método a que chamo Modelo do Embaixador. Esta abordagem baseia-se mais na curiosidade amigável — uma espécie de diplomacia descontraída — do que no confronto.

Sei que as pessoas têm reações emocionais diferentes à ideia de se envolverem em conversas controversas. Algumas apreciam o encontro. Outras estão dispostas, mas um pouco nervosas e inseguras. Outras ainda tentam evitá-lo por completo. E você? Onde quer que se encontre a esta escala, eu quero ajudar. Se é como muitas pessoas que pegam num livro como este, gostaria de fazer a diferença para o Reino, mas não tem a certeza de como começar. Quero dar-lhe um plano de ação, uma estratégia para se envolver de uma forma que nunca imaginou ser possível, mas com uma enorme margem de segurança.

Vou ensinar-lhe como navegar em conversas para que se mantenha no controlo — de uma forma positiva — mesmo que o seu conhecimento seja limitado. Pode não saber nada sobre como responder aos desafios que as pessoas levantam contra aquilo em que acredita. Pode até ser um cristão recém-convertido. Não importa. Vou apresentar-lhe algumas manobras eficazes — chamo-lhes táticas — que o ajudarão a manter o controlo.

Deixe-me dar um exemplo do que quero dizer.

A BRUXA EM WISCONSIN

Há alguns anos, durante as férias na nossa cabana de família em Wisconsin, a minha mulher e eu parámos numa loja de revelação de fotografias na cidade. Reparei que a mulher que nos estava a atender tinha um grande pentagrama, uma estrela de 5 pontas geralmente associada ao ocultismo, pendurado ao pescoço.

“Esta estrela tem algum significado religioso?”, perguntei, apontando para o pendente, “ou será apenas uma jóia?”

“Sim, tem um significado religioso”, respondeu ela. “As 5 pontas representam a terra, o vento, o fogo, a água e o espírito.” Depois ela acrescentou: “Sou pagã.”

A minha mulher, apanhada de surpresa pela franqueza da mulher, não conseguiu conter o riso e logo pediu desculpa. “Desculpe. Não quis ser rude. É que nunca ouvi ninguém admitir abertamente ser pagão”, explicou. Apenas conhecia o termo como um pejorativo utilizado pelas amigas gritando com os filhos: “Entrem aqui, bando de pagãos!”

“Então és Wicca?”, continuei.

Ela assentiu. Sim, era uma bruxa. “É uma religião da Terra”, explicou a mulher, “como a dos nativos americanos. Respeitamos toda a vida”.

“Se respeita toda a vida”, disse eu, “então suponho que é a favor do aborto.”

Ela abanou a cabeça. “Não, na verdade não sou. Sou a favor da escolha.”

Fiquei surpreendido. “Esta não é uma posição incomum para alguém na Wicca, uma vez que se compromete a respeitar toda a vida?”

“Tens razão. É estranho”, admitiu ela, e logo se ressalvou. “Eu sei que nunca conseguiria fazer isto. Quer dizer, nunca conseguiria matar um bebé. Não faria nada para magoar ninguém porque isso poderia virar-se contra mim.”

Esta foi uma reviravolta notável na conversa por dois motivos. Em primeiro lugar, repare nas palavras que ela usou para descrever o aborto. Segundo a própria, o aborto era um assassinato de bebés. A frase não foi um floreado retórico meu; foram as palavras dela. Não tive de a convencer de que o aborto tirava a vida a um ser humano inocente. Ela já sabia disso.

Ela acabara de me dar uma enorme vantagem na discussão, e eu não ia desperdiçá-la. A partir desse momento, abandonei a palavra "aborto"; seria "assassinato de bebés".

Em segundo lugar, achei notável que a sua primeira razão para não magoar uma criança indefesa fosse o interesse próprio — algo de mau lhe poderia acontecer. Será que era o melhor que ela podia fazer? Pensei para mim. Este comentário em si já merecia ser explorado, mas ignorei-o e adotei uma abordagem diferente.

“Bem, talvez não fizesse nada para magoar um bebé, mas outras pessoas fariam”, argumentei. “Não deveríamos fazer algo para as impedir de matar bebés?”

“Acho que as mulheres devem ter o direito de escolha”, respondeu, sem pensar.

Ora, geralmente, afirmações como “as mulheres devem ter o direito de escolha” são vazias de significado. Tal como a afirmação “Eu tenho o direito de apanhar...”, a alegação exige um objeto. Escolher... o quê? Apanhar... o quê? Ninguém tem um direito de escolha irrestrito. As pessoas só têm o direito de escolher coisas específicas. Se alguém tem o direito de escolher depende inteiramente da escolha que tem em mente.

Neste caso, porém, não havia ambiguidade. A mulher já tinha identificado a escolha: matar bebés, para usar as suas próprias palavras. Embora respeitasse pessoalmente toda a vida, incluindo a vida humana, esta não era uma crença que se sentisse confortável em "impor" aos outros. As mulheres devem ainda ter o direito de escolher matar os seus próprios bebés. Essa era a opinião dela. Claro que ela não a expressou com estas palavras. Era a opinião dela implicitamente.

Quando ideias bizarras como estas são obviamente implícitas, não as deixe esconder-se nas sombras. Traga-as à luz com um pedido de esclarecimento. Foi exatamente o que fiz a seguir.

"Quer dizer que as mulheres devem ter o direito de escolher matar os seus próprios bebés?"

"Bem..." Pensou ela por um momento. "Acho que todos os fatores devem ser tidos em conta nesta questão."

"Certo, diga-me: que tipo de considerações tornariam aceitável matar um bebé?"

"Incesto", respondeu ela rapidamente.

“Hum. Deixe-me ver se percebi. Digamos que eu tinha uma criança de 2 anos ao meu lado, concebida por incesto. Na sua opinião, eu teria a liberdade de a matar. É isso mesmo?”

Esta última pergunta fê-la parar abruptamente. A ideia era claramente absurda. Ficou também claro que ela estava profundamente comprometida com as suas convicções pró-escolha. Ela não tinha uma resposta espirituosa e teve de parar por um momento para pensar. Finalmente, disse: “Eu teria sentimentos contraditórios sobre isso”. Foi o melhor que ela conseguiu dizer.

Claro que ela quis dizer isto como uma cedência, mas foi uma resposta desesperadamente fraca (“Matar uma criança de 2 anos? Ui, esta apanhou-me. Vou ter de pensar nisso.”)

“Espero que sim”, foi tudo o que consegui dizer em resposta.

Nesse momento, reparei numa fila de potenciais clientes a formar-se atrás de mim. A nossa conversa estava a atrapalhar o seu trabalho. Era tempo de desistir. A minha esposa e eu finalizámos a nossa transação, desejamos-lhe tudo de bom e partimos.

Cuidado quando a retórica se torna um substituto da substância. Sabe-se sempre que uma pessoa tem uma posição frágil quando tenta alcançar, com o uso inteligente das palavras, aquilo que só o argumento não consegue.

Quero que repare em algumas coisas sobre este breve encontro. Em primeiro lugar, não houve tensão, ansiedade ou constrangimento na conversa. Não houve confronto, defensiva ou desconforto. A discussão fluiu fácil e naturalmente.

Segundo, mesmo assim, eu estava completamente no controlo da conversa. Consegui-o recorrendo a três táticas importantes, manobras que explicarei com mais detalhe mais à frente no livro, para sondar as ideias da jovem e começar a questionar o seu raciocínio falho.

Para começar, coloquei sete questões específicas. Utilizei estas perguntas para iniciar a conversa ("Esta estrela tem algum significado religioso ou é apenas uma jóia?") e para obter informações a partir dela ("Então és Wicca?"). De seguida, utilizei perguntas para expor o que considerava pontos fracos nas suas respostas ("Quer dizer que as mulheres devem ter o direito de matar os seus próprios bebés?").

Também questionei gentilmente a natureza inconsistente e contraditória dos seus pontos de vista. Por um lado, era uma bruxa que respeitava toda a vida. Por outro lado, era a favor do aborto, procedimento que caracterizava como "matar bebés".

Por fim, tentei ajudá-la a ver as consequências lógicas das suas crenças. Para ela, o incesto era uma razão legítima para matar um bebé. Mas, ao ser apresentada a uma criança concebida por incesto, hesitou. Nunca lhe tinha ocorrido que, no seu entender, o incesto seria uma razão legítima para matar uma criança de 2 anos, e isso fê-la refletir.

O terceiro ponto que quero que reparem sobre a nossa conversa é muito importante: a bruxa do Wisconsin estava a fazer a maior parte do trabalho. O único esforço real da minha parte foi prestar atenção às suas respostas e depois direcionar a conversa para onde eu queria. Isso não foi nada difícil.

Esta é a vantagem de utilizar uma abordagem tática: manter o controlo das conversas para direcionar a discussão de forma produtiva, expondo raciocínios com falhas e sugerindo alternativas mais frutíferas ao longo do processo.

Independentemente das suas capacidades atuais, pode conduzir conversas com quase total facilidade, tal como eu, se aprender o conteúdo deste livro. Já ensinei estes conceitos a milhares de pessoas como você e capacitei-as com a confiança e a capacidade para terem conversas significativas e produtivas sobre assuntos espirituais.

Pode tornar-se um embaixador eficaz de Cristo. Basta prestar atenção às orientações dos capítulos seguintes e começar a aplicar o que aprendeu.

EMBAIXADORES DO SÉCULO XXI

Representar Cristo no novo milénio exige três competências básicas. Em primeiro lugar, os embaixadores de Cristo precisam do conhecimento básico necessário para a tarefa. Devem conhecer a Mensagem central do Reino de Deus e saber lidar com os obstáculos que vão encontrar na sua missão diplomática.

No entanto, não basta que os seguidores de Jesus tenham uma mente bem informada. O nosso conhecimento deve ser temperado com a sabedoria que torna a nossa mensagem clara e persuasiva. Isto requer as ferramentas de um diplomata, não as armas de um guerreiro; habilidade tática em vez de força bruta.

Finalmente, o nosso carácter pode determinar o sucesso ou o fracasso da nossa Missão. O conhecimento e a sabedoria, por assim dizer, estão incorporados numa pessoa. Se essa pessoa não incorporar as virtudes do Reino que serve, prejudicará a sua Mensagem e comprometerá os seus esforços.

Estas 3 competências — conhecimento, uma mente bem informada; sabedoria, um método astuto; e carácter, uma forma atraente — desempenham um papel em todo o envolvimento eficaz com um não-crente. A segunda competência, a sabedoria tática, é o foco principal deste livro.

Vamos analisar isto de outra forma. Há uma diferença entre estratégia e tática. A estratégia envolve o panorama geral, a operação em grande escala, o posicionamento de alguém antes do envolvimento. Podemos aplicar este conceito à nossa situação de cristãos. Como seguidores de Jesus, temos uma tremenda superioridade estratégica. Estamos bem “posicionados” no terreno por causa do conteúdo das nossas ideias. As nossas crenças resistem bem a um escrutínio sério, especialmente tendo em conta os pontos de vista alternativos.

Esta vantagem estratégica inclui 2 áreas. A primeira, denominada “apologética ofensiva”, defende o cristianismo apresentando argumentos positivos, por exemplo, evidências da existência de Deus, da ressurreição de Cristo ou da fé cristã através do cumprimento de profecias. A segunda área, frequentemente designada por “apologética defensiva”, responde a desafios ao cristianismo, como os ataques à autoridade e fiabilidade da Bíblia, a resolução do problema do mal ou a abordagem da macroevolução darwiniana, para citar alguns exemplos. ²

Repare que, na forma como estou a utilizar o termo, o elemento “estratégico” centra-se no conteúdo. Praticamente todos os livros já escritos sobre a defesa da fé adotam esta abordagem. Os autores cristãos fiéis encheram as estantes com informação suficiente para lidar com todos os desafios imagináveis ​​ao cristianismo clássico. Ainda assim, muitos cristãos têm um complexo de inferioridade. Por quê? Talvez nunca tenham sido expostos a tão excelente informação. Como resultado, falta-lhes a primeira competência de um bom embaixador: o conhecimento.

Mas acho que há outro motivo. Algo ainda está em falta. Um advogado perspicaz precisa de mais do que factos para defender o seu caso em tribunal. Ele precisa de saber usar bem o seu conhecimento. Da mesma forma, precisamos de um plano para gerir habilmente os detalhes dos diálogos que temos com os outros. É aí que entram as táticas.

TÁTICAS: A PEÇA QUE FALTAVA NO PUZZLE

Na Segunda Guerra Mundial, as forças aliadas tinham um plano estratégico para conquistar uma posição no continente europeu. A invasão da Normandia, com o nome de código "Operação Overlord", envolveu um ataque simultâneo a 5 praias — Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno e Sword — a 6 de junho de 1944, também conhecido como Dia D.

 

Nenhuma estratégia, por mais brilhante que seja, pode ganhar uma guerra. O diabo, como se costuma dizer, está nos detalhes. Os soldados individuais devem chegar à praia e entrar em combate, implantando recursos e destruindo obstáculos para obter vantagem, desviando-se das balas a todo o momento.

Embora estejamos a seguir um modelo diplomático e não militar, a metáfora militar não deixa de ser útil para distinguir a estratégia da táctica. As táticas, literalmente "a arte de organizar", centram-se na situação imediata. Envolvem a coreografia ordenada e a prática dos detalhes. Muitas vezes, um comandante astuto consegue obter vantagem sobre uma força maior, com superioridade numérica ou de efectivos, através de manobras tácticas engenhosas.

Acho que consegue ver o paralelo para si como cristão. Pode ter experiência pessoal de como o Evangelho pode mudar a vida de alguém, mas como é que elabora respostas específicas para pessoas específicas para começar a causar impacto em situações específicas? As táticas podem ajudar porque oferecem técnicas de manobra em conversas que, de outra forma, poderiam ser difíceis. Orientam-no a organizar os seus próprios recursos de maneira astuta. Sugerem abordagens que qualquer pessoa pode utilizar para ser mais persuasiva, em parte porque o ajudam a ser mais razoável e ponderado — em vez de apenas emocional — sobre as suas convicções enquanto seguidor de Cristo.

A abordagem tática exige tanta escuta atenta como resposta ponderada. É preciso estar alerta e prestar atenção para se poder adaptar a novas informações. Este método assemelha-se mais a um jogo de basquetebol um contra um do que a um jogo de xadrez. Há planos a serem executados, mas há movimento e ajustes constantes.

Tenho vários nomes estranhos para estas táticas para o ajudar a lembrar-se do que são e como funcionam — nomes como Columbo; Suicídio; Tirando o Telhado; Bolseiro Rhodes; Apenas os factos, minha senhora; e rolo compressor. Algumas inicia-se; outras utiliza para autoproteção.

Nas páginas seguintes, encontrará exemplos da vida real e amostras de diálogos onde utilizo uma abordagem tática para lidar com objeções, queixas ou afirmações comuns levantadas contra as convicções que eu e você temos como seguidores de Jesus. Mas há um perigo do qual quero que esteja ciente, por isso preciso de fazer uma pausa e esclarecer algo importante.

“As táticas não são truques manipuladores ou artimanhas astutas. Não são estratagemas inteligentes para constranger outras pessoas e forçá-las a submeter-se ao seu ponto de vista. Não se destinam a menosprezar ou humilhar aqueles que discordam para que possa ganhar pontos no seu currículo espiritual. Não é da vida cristã magoar, constranger ou competir com colegas, amigos ou mesmo adversários, mas é um vício comum no qual qualquer pessoa pode facilmente cair.” — Hugh Hewitt3

Ofereço este aviso por 2 razões. Em primeiro lugar, estas táticas são poderosas e podem ser abusadas. Não é difícil fazer alguém parecer tolo quando se dominam estas técnicas. Uma abordagem tática pode mostrar rapidamente às pessoas o quão tolas são algumas das suas ideias. Por isso, deve ter cuidado para não usar as suas táticas simplesmente para atacar os outros. 4

Em segundo lugar, as ilustrações deste livro são relatos abreviados de encontros que realmente tive. Ao recontá-los, posso parecer mais severo ou agressivo do que fui na vida real. Não sou contra ser assertivo, direto ou desafiante. No entanto, nunca pretendo ser abrasivo ou abusivo. O meu objetivo, em vez disso, é encontrar formas inteligentes de explorar o pensamento errado de alguém com o propósito de o guiar para a verdade, permanecendo gentil e caridoso ao mesmo tempo. O meu objetivo é gerir, não manipular; controlar, não coagir; usar a subtileza, não lutar. Quero o mesmo para ti.

 

Se está um pouco nervoso com a perspectiva de conversar com pessoas fora da segurança dos seus círculos cristãos, permita-me oferecer-lhe uma palavra de encorajamento. Tenho estado envolvido com desafiadores e críticos no mercado das ideias há mais de três décadas. As pessoas com quem falo — ateus, membros de seitas, cépticos e secularistas de todos os tipos — opõem-se às visões cristãs evangélicas, por vezes vigorosa e beligerantemente. Muitas vezes, são pessoas muito inteligentes.

Para ser sincero, preocupou-me no início. Não tinha a certeza de como as ideias que aprendi na segurança do meu escritório se sairiam contra os inteligentes em público, com milhares de pessoas a assistir ou a ouvir. O que descobri na prática, porém, foi que os factos e a razão sólida estão do nosso lado. A maioria das pessoas, mesmo as inteligentes, não pensa muito na sua oposição ao cristianismo. Como é que eu sei? Ouvi as suas objeções.

Não precisa de ter medo da verdade ou dos adversários. Não tenha pressa, faça a sua pesquisa, reflita sobre as questões. Se o cristianismo é a verdade, por mais convincente que o outro lado pareça à partida, haverá sempre uma falha algures — um erro de raciocínio, um «facto» errado, uma conclusão injustificada. Continue a procurar. Cedo ou tarde, ela aparecerá. Muitas vezes, a tática certa irá ajudá-lo a descobrir essa falha e a mostrá-la como o erro que é.

Existe uma arte neste processo, e aprender qualquer habilidade requer tempo e um pouco de esforço concentrado. É preciso prática para transformar uma situação potencialmente volátil numa oportunidade. Se aprender as táticas deste livro, porém, prometo que se tornará melhor a apresentar a verdade com clareza — e, por vezes, até com inteligência. Guiá-lo-ei, passo a passo, através de um plano de ação que o ajudará a movimentar-se com conforto e elegância em conversas sobre as suas convicções e valores cristãos.

Se for um aluno atento, em pouco tempo desenvolverá a arte de manter o controlo apropriado — aquilo a que chamo “estar no comando” — em discussões com outras pessoas. Aprenderá a navegar pelos campos minados para ganhar terreno ou vantagem em conversas. Em síntese, aprenderá a ser um diplomata melhor — um embaixador de Jesus Cristo.

O QUE APRENDEMOS NESTE CAPÍTULO

Em primeiro lugar, aprendemos o valor de usar a abordagem tática ao discutir o Cristianismo. As táticas ajudam-no a controlar a conversa, colocando-o no comando e mantendo-o lá. As táticas também o ajudam a manobrar eficazmente no meio de desacordos, para que os seus encontros pareçam mais diplomacia do que combate.

Em segundo lugar, definimos táticas e diferenciamo-las de estratégia. A estratégia envolve o panorama geral, que, no nosso caso, significa o conteúdo, a informação e as razões pelas quais se deve acreditar que o cristianismo é verdadeiro. As táticas, por outro lado, envolvem os detalhes do encontro, a arte de navegar pela própria conversa.

Em terceiro lugar, aprendemos sobre os perigos de utilizar táticas. As táticas não são truques, artimanhas astutas ou manobras inteligentes que menosprezam ou humilham a outra pessoa. Em vez disso, as táticas são utilizadas para ganhar terreno, manobrar e expor o pensamento errado de outra pessoa para que a possa guiar até à verdade.

Antes de entrarmos nos detalhes, porém, gostaria de abordar algumas possíveis reservas que possa ter.

Continua amanhã

Read More

Which Worldview Best Explains Meaning and Purpose?

https://www.str.org/w/which-worldview-best-explains-meaning-and-purpose- 

Read More

Can Evolution Explain Our Sense of Meaning?

https://www.str.org/w/can-evolution-explain-our-sense-of-meaning- 

Read More

Tactics Video Study, Session 1: The Columbo Tactic

Read More

Equipping and Training from "Tactics"

Read More

Street Smarts: How to Defend YOUR Faith with Questions (Greg Koukl)

Read More

Reality Is On Our Side | Atheism: Bumping Into Reality

Read More

When Lies Become "Truth" and the Monsters it Makes Us.

Read More

Standing for What is Right... Even if it Means Standing Alone!

 https://www.str.org/w/freedom-fading    By Greg Koukl

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn—Russian dissident, 10-year forced-labor Soviet Gulag inmate, Nobel Laureate, Christian—lamented the “fallacious belief” that “here such things are impossible,” that totalitarianism could not happen in one’s own country. “Alas,” he wrote, “all the evil of the twentieth century is possible everywhere on earth.”[1]

Read those words carefully. It is the point I have been building towards in the last two issues of Solid Ground.[2]

In the first article, I chronicled my own experiences behind the Iron Curtain in 1976 working with Christians living under brutal authoritarian rule in communist bloc countries like Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the former Soviet Union—places where believers suffered significant loss of personal liberty and, in some cases, severe persecution simply for following Christ.

In the next article, I pointed out that citizens in any culture will ultimately be ruled by one of two fundamental forces: either truth or power. Any nation whose people lack the liberty to pursue, discover, and live by truth will be destined to live as victims of lies and frequently crushed under the heels of powerful oppressors.

I then briefly traced the development of the first great lie—what I called “the primal heresy”—from its inception in the Garden to its current divinization of self that some have labeled “expressive individualism.” At the Fall, mankind replaced the external truth of God’s world and God’s morality with the internal “truth” of bald personal preference and naked individual desire. The act of rebellion that traded truth “out there” for truth “in here”—the outside/inside distinction—marked the birth of what has come to be known as relativism.

Remember, relativism is the ultimate negation of truth, and when truth dies, power is all that remains. The immediate payoff for relativism—the unrestrained narcissism of expressive individualism—may be satisfying for a season, but it’s a fleeting gratification. Bald force eventually fills the truth vacuum, and relativists’ values begin cannibalizing relativists’ liberties. Whoever has the power to nullify liberty ultimately gets to enforce his own preferences. Postmodern people are leaning on a bent reed.

These musings have not been idle reflections, however. Rather, the downward arc of the shifting ethos of the West has revealed a disquieting trend. Liberal democracy—in the best sense of those words—is becoming a thing of the past. America is moving rapidly toward the brink of a peculiar species of totalitarianism that promises to erode freedom, hinder our ability to proclaim the gospel, and compromise our liberty to live peacefully with our Christian convictions.

I have not been alone in my concern. Émigrés from former Soviet bloc countries who fled the totalitarianism of communism for the freedom of America are mortified at the trend. When author Rod Dreher asked if they thought America was drifting toward some type of totalitarianism, “They all said yes—often emphatically”[3] (emphasis in original).

Totalitarianism

I wrote “peculiar species of totalitarianism” above because what we are experiencing now is actually an amalgam of two forms of totalitarianism—soft and hard. First, a general description, though.

Totalitarianism is not the same as dictatorship, where an individual tyrant’s jackboot stands on the neck of liberty. That is simple authoritarianism. Totalitarianism goes further. Drawing on insight from expert Hannah Arendt, Dreher clarifies:

A totalitarian society is one in which an ideology seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with the goal of bringing all aspects of society under control of that ideology. A totalitarian state is one that aspires to nothing less than defining and controlling reality. Truth is whatever the rulers decide it is.[4] [Emphasis added.]

Notice the militant relativism that makes totalitarianism possible. When truth comes not from the outside but from the inside, power prevails. Truth becomes “whatever the rulers decide it is.”

The indoctrination to an alternate reality at the heart of totalitarianism has a curious effect. When reality is persuasively redefined by the incessant drone of political propaganda and abetted by not-so-subtle social pressures, the populace is gradually persuaded by it and willingly embraces it in large numbers as the high moral ground. Those who do not are vilified as enemies of the good (“haters,” in the current vernacular)—the “good,” that is, as defined by the authorities. Orwell’s “Big Brother” comes immediately to mind.

At the moment, I am halfway through William Shirer’s remarkable work The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I realize it’s risky conjuring the image of fascist dictators to make a point. Some have done this so frequently and so frivolously that people are inclined not to take such allusions seriously. In this case, though, they ought to. Santayana famously warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Shirer noted the precise pattern I described above displayed by Germans in the 1930s, a dynamic (Shirer confessed) even he was vulnerable to: “A steady diet over the years of falsifications and distortions made a certain impression on one’s mind and often misled it.” He then referenced “the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons” who were obviously “parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers.” Opposing the nonsense was useless, he wrote, since “on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty.”[5]

And so today. The propaganda of the Left regarding sexuality, gender, the “bigotry” and “hate” of Christians, etc., is so pervasive and rhetorically clever, it has become irresistibly persuasive to many who are mystified that some—especially religious conservatives—are not falling into step with the times. Worse, they’re angry at unpersuaded dissenters who now loom as dangerous enemies of the common good.

That siren song of the new order now presses in on us from two directions, creating the peculiar amalgam of totalitarian tyranny I spoke of.

“Soft Totalitarianism”

In soft totalitarianism, compliance is not enforced by government. Rather, private cultural institutions controlled by elites accomplish that task—the academy, the press, “enlightened” corporations, Hollywood, and especially those controlling social media.

Many of us, particularly the young, live out our social lives online—through Instagram, Facebook, Twitter—and manage our lives at the behest of its aggressive stepsisters, Amazon, Apple, and Google. We post, we purchase, we tweet, we opine, we share vital information and also gather vital information using their platforms.

These enterprises provide the bulk of our access to the outside world. It has become obvious to careful observers, though, that these digital giants are not neutral players in this game. We are being watched, and we are being tracked. Corporate Goliaths are assiduously collecting every piece of information they can on our purchasing habits, our preferences, our private lives—even our travel patterns. [6]

Rod Dreher reports that this “surveillance capitalism hoovers up detailed personal data about individuals and analyzes it with sophisticated algorithms to predict people’s behavior.”[7]

The initial goal of this online data harvesting is, of course, monetization of information—profit, for short. But there is a darker side. Sophisticated algorithms have another consequence. “The rapidly growing power of information technology and its ubiquitous presence in daily life,” Dreher warns, “immensely magnifies the ability of those who control institutions to shape society according to their ideals”[8] (emphasis added).

Have you noticed how frequently social media moguls have been silencing dissenters by using “community standards” guidelines that appear to guarantee civility in their domains but often serve to weed out political dissidents? Worse, many are able to economically retaliate against nonconformists by demonetizing their platforms or banning them from business access. Even offline, corporate giants are increasingly and openly indoctrinating employees with progressive politics as a de facto condition of continued employment.

This is soft totalitarianism. Left-leaning corporations and other elites are its willing agents, and we consumers are its willing subjects. They have their “bully pulpit,” but they also have their “big stick,” the not-so-subtle social pressures I mentioned earlier.

One of the strongest evidences of totalitarianism is punishment of dissent. Dissidents can be destroyed. Here are a few examples. There are many, many more.

Shaming, Silencing, Canceling

For years, I have noticed a common practice among Christians, even in the relatively safe spaces of churches or Christian retreats: They lower their voice when they mention the word “homosexual.” Why? Because they are afraid. They’ve unconsciously adopted this habit out of fear of being shamed, or attacked, or belittled, or bullied simply for broaching the topic. This fear, of course, is an indirect pressure. Other pressures are not so subtle.

Journalist Bari Weiss reports that in California and New York, secret meetings are being held—not on Zoom or Facebook (too public, too traceable, and too permanent), but in backyards.

Wealthy parents of children enrolled in prestigious $45,000-per-year private prep schools like Harvard-Westlake in L.A. or Fieldstone in New York are mortified that their kids are being indoctrinated in the resentment and fear connected with Critical Race Theory (CRT), “collective racial guilt,” and so-called “white fragility.”

They are horrified and they are scared, with most too frightened to speak up. “The school can ask you to leave for any reason,” one parent said. “Then...you’ll be known as a racist, which is worse than being called a murderer.” Students begged their parents not to be interviewed by Weiss for fear of social shaming. “If you publish my name, it would ruin my life,” one kid said.

“They have a pattern of shaming anyone who…dissents from the group narrative,” one mother explained. “Once someone shames one person, many chime in agreement. The times I speak up to defend those they shame, they attempt to shame me.”

“The ideology,” Weiss writes, “has changed children’s self-conception.” The propaganda is so intense and the sophistry so sophisticated, the kids have begun to believe and internalize the lies. Recall the pattern Shirer noted in Germany.

Though Weiss’s focus was on high-end private schools, the same pattern is in play everywhere—even in some “Christian” schools. Public schools are most vulnerable, though, because the Left controls that educational system in many states. “To resist this ideology is to go against the entire institutional world,” Weiss concludes.[9]

Brendan Eich, creator of JavaScript and co-founder of Mozilla, served as its CEO until 2014. Then news surfaced of a 2008 donation of $1,000 to California’s Prop 8 limiting legal marriage to male-female unions. Though Eich never showed animosity towards the LGBT community in his personal or professional life, activists used social media to publicly pillory him, generating 50,000 signatures from those demanding Eich’s resignation. Because of his classical view of marriage, Brendan Eich was canceled from the company he founded.[10]

West Town’s Nini’s Deli was Yelp’s highest-rated restaurant in Chicago and listed as one of their top 100 places to eat in the U.S. three years in a row. A Cuban-Mexican immigrant couple founded Nini’s, and their sons, Juan and José Riesco, ran it. All were Christians and members of the multiracial, ethnically diverse Metro Praise International church. Nini’s sported a celebrated cuisine of Cuban-inspired dishes and had commercial ties with Adidas, Intelligentsia Coffee, Bang Bang Pie, Molly’s Cupcakes, and Nike.

The Riesco’s success story came to a screeching halt in a matter of days, though, in June 2020. Because they did not publicly signal solidarity with Black Lives Matter, and because of their Christian stance on homosexuality, they were labeled racist and homophobic. Droves of former satisfied customers turned on them, and protesters descended on Nini’s Deli like a tidal wave.

Militants threatened to burn the deli down and kill the Riescos. They found out where family members worked and pressed the employers to terminate them, which they did. Under pressure from activists, all of Nini’s corporate partners denounced them and canceled them. Thousands mobbed the previously popular corner deli and shut it down.

“If you don’t put Black Lives Matter on your restaurant, it’s just guaranteed to get destroyed,” Juan said. The video footage of the hatred displayed in the name of anti-hatred is chilling.[11] The family fled its beloved Chicago in the middle of the night. The Riescos now live in Dallas.

Three years ago, Ryan Anderson published When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. You can no longer buy it on Amazon, though. The book violates the company’s current standards. “We have chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness,” Amazon’s Brian Huseman wrote.

“Everyone agrees that gender dysphoria is a serious condition that causes great suffering,” Anderson replied. “There is a debate, however, which Amazon is seeking to shut down, about how best to treat patients who experience gender dysphoria. Amazon is using its massive power to distort the marketplace of ideas and is deceiving its own customers in the process.” [12]

Amazon is responsible for 53% of book sales in the U.S. and 80% of all e-books. What other books will they blacklist, and how will this affect what publishers choose to publish?

“In July 2020, Niel Golightly, a 62-year-old Boeing communications chief was forced to resign for an article he wrote 33 years earlier. As a 29-year-old navy pilot, he’d argued against women serving in combat. He has since disavowed those views. No matter. Though Boeing admitted that the executive made “substantial” contributions in the short time he’d been there, the company has “zero tolerance for bigotry of any kind”—and, apparently, from any time, even the “bigotry” of a recanted view voiced half a lifetime ago.

Chief executive David Calhoun emphasized Boeing’s “unrelenting commitment to diversity and inclusion in all its dimensions, and to ensuring that all of our employees have an equal opportunity to contribute and excel” (emphasis added). The irony of his own statement escaped him, of course.[13]

Soft totalitarianism is frequently enforced with an almost spiritual passion. Former Attorney General William Barr observed:

The secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor…including inquisitions and excommunication. Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake—social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.[14]

“Hard Totalitarianism”

Indeed, the soft totalitarianism imposed by cultural elites can be harsh. When the government steps in, though, the totalitarian amalgam thus created between soft and hard can be Orwellian. For the sake of space, let me briefly offer two instances, though examples like these are increasing at an alarming rate.

In 2013, former Atlanta Fire Chief Kevin Cochran self-published a book for his men's Bible study that condemned homosexuality as contrary to God’s plan. For his efforts, he was suspended without pay for 30 days and told not to comment publicly on the affair.

When, in violation of then-mayor Kasim Reed’s directive, Cochran organized a public relations campaign on his behalf, he was terminated, even though the city’s legal team admitted he had not engaged in illegal discrimination. With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, Cochran sued and settled out of court for $1.2 million.[15]

As I write, a nefarious bill is moving through the United State Congress that, among other things, effectively erases any physical distinctions between the sexes. It’s called the “Equality Act” and has already passed in the House.

Though federal law already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, this bill treats sex as a psychological state of mind unrelated to biology. Consequently, males who self-identify as females cannot be denied access to female-only areas that guaranteed privacy in the past. Note the bill’s wording:

An individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.[16]

Further, the Equality Act would actually end equality in women’s sports by preventing women from competing on an equal basis with other women. Biological males—normally excluded from competing against females (that’s the point of women’s sports, after all)—could not be excluded, by law, if they self-identify as females. Women will not only lose races, they’ll lose scholarships, too, as also-rans to biological males who will easily defeat them.[17]

Worse, this act explicitly exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, removing any safe harbor for Christians resisting the provisions of this bill on religious grounds.

Since “discrimination against a married same-sex couple could be based on the sex stereotype that marriage should only be between heterosexual couples, the sexual orientation of the two individuals in the couple, or both,”[18] churches would be vulnerable to criminal prosecution simply for adhering faithfully to biblical teaching. That is how far down the slope we have slipped.

The act also prohibits “discrimination on the basis of pregnancy…or a related medical condition,” using wording that has already been interpreted by courts to include abortion. Thus, those who refuse to perform abortions could be vulnerable to punishment.[19]

RX

At times, the tsunami of change we’re facing seems overwhelming for its force, dizzying for its speed, and chilling for its darkness. It’s easy to begin feeling helpless, but that is not our path. There is another way.

In September 1974, Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the Soviet Union and sent into exile. His final salvo was an essay suggesting a remedy for the common citizen, the ordinary person dwarfed by the totalitarian state. He titled it “Live Not by Lies.”

Most of us are not in a position to effect any immediate change in the culture at large. That does not mean we’re powerless, though, he argued. The lies that drive the system can be resisted by ordinary people being faithful to truth while living lives of simple integrity. This approach entails two things.

First, we refuse to be cowed by pressure to affirm falsehood. Like the noble Christians at Nini’s Deli, we stand our ground. We live consistently with our convictions, firmly holding to truth even when we can’t defend it well or make sense of it to outsiders.

Solzhenitsyn counseled not to say, write, affirm, or distribute anything that distorts truth. Rather, walk out of meetings where discussion is forced and truth is not allowed to be spoken.[20] Refuse to affirm what you do not believe. Just say no, but do so respectfully, even when the price for fidelity is public shaming, silencing, or canceling.

Second, we act. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil,” the saying goes, “is for good men to do nothing.” Resisting takes inner courage, of course, and courage starts with small steps. It also takes a group, a family, the Body of Christ. We stand together. It takes outward virtue, too. We are careful to live with integrity in all areas of our lives.

Be direct but courteous in the face of opposition. If asked what your preferred pronoun is, graciously say, “I don’t have a preferred pronoun. I have a sex. I’m male [for example].” When pressured at the office to participate in “sensitivity” seminars that go against your convictions, respectfully decline. If pressed, say, “It appears you’re using your influence as my employer to get me to accept your politics. Do you think that’s a proper use of your power and authority?”

Be prudent, however. Carefully weigh the risks of resistance, counting the cost. Not all hills are worth dying on—but some are.

If we’re clever, we can leverage the culture’s own values against it. For example, when considering adopting a radical sexual education curriculum, our local school district asked (disingenuously, I think) for input from the community during their public meeting. Here is what I wrote for my wife to deliver that evening:

We are a diverse community, and the school board values diversity. That means there are diverse understandings about controversial issues like human sexuality.

Traditionally, parents have been the ones to carefully inform their children about these issues at a time and in a way appropriate for their age, and within the protected environment of the family. The government—represented here by the school board—has not traditionally been allowed to interfere with educating issues so critical to family and so appropriate to private parental nurturing of their children. To do so would be to have individual family beliefs and values overridden by whatever group happened to be in power at the time.

No one set of personal values should be allowed to dictate the beliefs of our children in a public education system that includes such diverse groups as Muslims, and Christians, and Orthodox Jews, and Buddhists, and humanists, and atheists, and so many others.

Public values shared by all, on the other hand—values like honesty, kindness, truth seeking, integrity, respect, etc.—should be encouraged by all, including the schools, since they are agreed upon by all and are not controversial.

However, contentious and divisive personal views should not be forced upon our children. This is indoctrination and replaces the parent’s rightful role.

When government takes over the responsibility of informing our children’s private and personal moral values instead of the parents and individual families doing so, it is a step towards oppression and a significant and serious violation of the diversity and multicultural respect the school board stands for.

If any group in power gets to force their personal values on our kids, then when a different group gets power, they will be able to force their personal values on that group’s kids. Neither is consistent with diversity, tolerance, or appropriate American liberty.

Please, I respectfully implore you: Leave that job to the parents of the children that belong to them…and not to the state.

Until now, it’s cost us virtually nothing to be Christian in America. I am convinced those days are rapidly coming to a close. “A time of painful testing, even persecution, is coming,” Dreher warns. “Lukewarm or shallow Christians will not come through with their faith intact.”[21]

Choosing not to live by lies can change culture over time, but that is not its immediate purpose, in my view. Its purpose is not principally pragmatic, but ethical. We live not by lies because it’s wrong before God to do so, even if it costs us.

 

---

[1] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956.

[2] Find “Iron Curtain Diary” and “The Primal Heresy” at str.org.

[3] Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (New York City: Sentinel, 2020), xi.

[4] Ibid, 7–8.

[5] William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 247–8.

[6] Note the sobering documentary “The Social Dilemma,” available on Netflix.

[7] Dreher, 76–77.

[8] Ibid, 71.

[9] Bari Weiss, “The Miseducation of America’s Elites,” City Journal, March 9, 2021.

[10] Alistair Barr, “Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down,” The Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2014.

[11] “Paint the Wall Black—The Story of Nini’s Deli”

[12] Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, The Wall Street Journal, “Amazon Won’t Sell Books Framing LGBTQ+ Identities as Mental Illnesses.”

[13] The New York Times, “Boeing Communications Chief Resigns Over 33-Year-Old Article.”

[14] William Barr, Justice News, “Remarks to the University of Notre Dame Law School,” October 11, 2019.

[15] NBC News, “Fired after Writing Anti-Gay Book, Ex-Fire Chief Set to Receive $1.2M Settlement,” October 17, 2018.

[16] H.R.5

[17] See, for example, Duke Law, “Comparing Athletic Performances: The Best Elite Women to Boys and Men.”

[18] Ibid.

[19] Melanie Israel, “Equality Act Is a Trojan Horse for Abortion Lobby and More.”

[20] Dreher, 18.

[21] Ibid, 160.

Read More

Street Tactics - part 2

By Greg Koukle
tactics

One critical challenge you will not be able to avoid as a Christian ambassador is the challenge of the atheist. Yet, most Christians are not prepared for—and are therefore understandably apprehensive about—encounters with them. I want to help you be ready when the opportunity comes your way.

There are two reasons engaging with atheists can be daunting.

First, the most vulnerable part of any worldview is its foundation. Undermine that, and you undercut every single thing resting upon it. Destroy the footings, and the whole lot crumbles.

It’s an effective general strategy we use often at STR, but there’s a reason atheism puts us on the defensive side of that approach. Our story starts, “In the beginning, God….” If there is no God, then there is no story and Christianity never gets off the ground. Simple.

Second, atheists are often confident, aggressive, and unyielding. Plus, their complaints against theism initially make sense to a lot of people who are on the fence. Their points are often rhetorically clever and complex, making them difficult for Christians to counter.

That’s one reason they’ve been effectively turning heads in recent years. According to a current Pew Research Center poll, those who describe themselves as atheists account for 4% of U.S. adults, up from 2% in 2009. That’s a 100% increase in the last decade.[i] There’s even a popular tutorial available providing tactical training to help atheists make an atheist out of you.[ii]

With the spate of deconversion stories recently making their rounds on the internet, it’s clear the approach is having an impact on Christians. That’s why you need to be prepared with specific plans to help you engage the issue thoughtfully and with grace when you encounter it.

In the book Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions,[iii] I detail the larger plan for engaging with non-Christians. Here, though, I’m focusing on one application of that plan that I’ve called “Street Tactics,” a battery of specific questions you can use to challenge a dissenter on a particular topic. This approach keeps you in the driver’s seat of the conversation in a pleasant way, protecting you from the risk associated with more head-to-head encounters.

First, I give you some insight into the specific weaknesses of the challenge offered. Then I provide specific questions to get you started (rendered in bold) along with samples of how the initial stage of a dialogue might unfold.

Those initial questions are important. When dealing with a tough issue, it’s always good to have an opening move at the ready. If you’re prepared with a question giving you something to say right out of the gate, it gives you a safe launching pad into the conversation.

When I know my first move, it relaxes me and gives me confidence since I’m the one taking the initiative in the conversation. It gets me going in a friendly way, yet with little risk.

I explained the general Street Tactics approach in the last issue of Solid Ground. There, I gave the guidance you need to maneuver though the minefields of one the most frequent challenges you’ll face, the problem of evil.[iv]

Three Moves

Of course, there is a plethora of issues atheists raise and a rack of titles offered by thoughtful Christians responding to them.[v] My purpose here is not to retrace that ground.

Instead, I want to give you insight into three general moves you’ll face with atheists and then provide some tactical questions to get you moving forward comfortably in conversation on those concerns, yet with a minimum of risk.

Take note, the goal of this approach is not to close the deal. We’re not in harvest mode here. Instead, I want to help you do a little gardening by offering a few simple questions to get your friend thinking. I call it “putting a stone in his shoe.”

There are three errors you will consistently confront when talking with atheists. The atheist’s first misstep is a defensive move, a deflection. By redefining the word “atheist,” he attempts to absolve himself of any responsibility to defend his own view. His second move is another redefinition, this time of the word “faith,” distorting it to make it impossible for you to defend your view. Finally, there’s the blanket dismissal, “Believing in God is irrational. There is no evidence.”

Before I go further, though, let me give you a general maneuver. My first response when somebody tells me he’s an atheist is, “Really? That’s interesting. What kind of atheist are you?”

My question trades on the simple fact that atheists do not agree on everything. Most atheists are materialists—convinced that nothing exists except physical things known empirically by the five senses—but not all are. Some believe in objective morality; some do not. Some flutter back and forth between atheism and agnosticism, depending on the definitions.

Asking this question has a number of advantages.

First, I want the atheist to see I’m not shocked or intimidated by his announcement but rather curious about his convictions and comfortable learning more about them. An opening question like this also buys me time to think about where I might go next with my queries.

Next, this question immediately forces the atheist to begin thinking about his own view in a more precise fashion, something I’m convinced most atheists have rarely done.

My second general question is, “Why are you an atheist?” I have no idea how my friend is going to respond—except to offer a vague claim that there is no evidence for God or that theism is irrational (I’ll deal with those canards in a moment).[vi]

Notice, since I’m the one initiating the conversation, I’m in the driver’s seat. Because I’m using questions, thttps://www.str.org/w/street--part-2here’s no pressure on me. I’m in student mode, not persuasion mode. It’s a safe place to be.

With your initial queries in place, let’s move on to the three faulty maneuvers I mentioned that atheists frequently make.

Atheism Lite

Oddly, many atheists apparently no longer believe there is no God. Instead, they say, they merely lack belief in God. They don’t claim God doesn’t exist. Rather, they simply don’t believe He does exist.”

Atheists are not un-believers, then. They are simply non-believers. Since a non-belief is not a claim, it requires no defense. Thus, atheism secures the inside lane as the default view of reasonable people. Or so atheists think. That’s the strategy here.

Some will attempt to find safe harbor in a vague agnosticism. Since they don’t know God exists (“Theoretically, it’s possible He does”), they’re not really atheist but agnostic—in knowledge limbo on the issue.

These moves are almost always disingenuous coming from someone who is clearly a committed atheist. True agnosticism is an intellectually noble position, of course. But that’s not what’s going on here.

Theism, atheism, and agnosticism are not knowledge categories, but beliefcategories. Most of our beliefs are fallible—capable of being false—yet we still think they’re true, often with good reason. If agnosticism merely means lack of certainty, then each of us is agnostic on just about everything. This is silly.

The label “skeptic” often suffers from the same linguistic subterfuge since most self-described skeptics are not the least bit skeptical about their own skepticism; they are fully committed atheists.

Here is the insight that betrays the flaw in this verbal sleight of hand: Atheists may lack a belief in God, true enough, but they do not lack a belief about God. They are neither agnostics nor non-believers. Rather, they are believers of a certain kind: They actually believe that there is no God, even if they don’t know for sure.

The root word “theism” means the existence of God, and the prefix “a” is a negation. An atheist, then, is one who holds “not God,” or “God is not.” In plain language, atheism is the belief that there is no God. This is not linguistically complicated. It never has been.

If I were an atheist, I would not take this route. I’d fear people would think I was cheating with words, betraying weakness, not strength. This, as it turns out, is exactly what’s happening. Yes, there is a difference between non-belief and un-belief, but there is no refuge here for the atheist. Here’s why.

If you asked me which rugby team was the best in England, I wouldn’t know where to start. Since I have no beliefs about the quality of rugby competition in the U.K., I am truly a non-believer regarding the question. I am neutral.

This is not the case with atheists, though, since they are not neutral on the God question. If they were, they wouldn’t be writing books or doing debates. No one pontificates on their non-beliefs. There’d be nothing to talk about.

Richard Dawkins is currently the world’s most famous atheist. He makes his case in his best-selling book, The God Delusion. If God is really a delusion, then He does not exist. Simple. Theists say there is a God, and atheists like Dawkins contend they’re wrong—even delusional. Thus, atheists argue that there is no God—hardly a non-belief.

Look, anyone who has a point of view has a belief he thinks is true even if he doesn’t know it’s true. Atheists have a point of view. This makes them believers of a particular stripe: They believe God doesn’t exist.

With that insight clearly in place, here is how I would proceed in a conversation with someone I’m convinced is actually a standard, run-of-the-mill atheist in spite of his evasiveness.

“Given your claim that you simply lack a belief in God, would you mind if I ask you a question?”

“No. Go ahead.”

“I’m going to make a statement, and I’d like you to respond to it. Okay?”

“Sure.”

“Here it is: God exists. What do you personally believe about that statement?”

“Like I told you before, I don’t know for certain.”

“Right. I got that. But I’m not asking you what you know. I’m asking you what you believe.”

“I’m agnostic.”

“If you were truly an agnostic, you’d have no opinion one way or the other. From what you’ve said so far, though, you’re not neutral on the subject of God. So let me put the issue another way. Given my statement ‘God exists,’ it seems you have one of three choices.[vii]You could either affirm the statement (that would be my view, theism), you could deny the statement (that would be atheism), or you could completely withhold judgment since you have no opinion one way or another (agnosticism). Can you think of any other logical options?”

“No, not really.”[viii]

“So what’s your view—affirm, deny, or withhold?”

“Like I said, I lack a belief in God.”

“I get that. But that’s not one of the logical options available here. Are you really saying you have no opinion on this matter? If so, then what are you trying to convince me of? It doesn’t sound like you simply want me to ‘lack a belief in God.’ It sounds like you want me to believe there is no God. Which is it?”

The purpose of this line of questioning is to even the playing field. Both the Christian and the atheist have a conviction—a belief—and those beliefs are at odds. Fair enough. That means both have a view to defend. If you’re not clear on this issue, you’ll always be on the defensive and the atheist will have a free ride in the discussion. Don’t let that happen.

Fanciful Faith

The atheist’s first maneuver keeps him from having to defend his own view. The second is an attempt to keep you from defending yours. The ploy is a common one, a mistake in thinking even Christians have unwittingly abetted, so it’s an error made on both sides of the aisle.

Suppose I claim that atheism is lame since atheists don’t believe in science. After all, they don’t believe in God because they can’t see Him, but they can’t see atoms either, so their existence must be in question, too. Since atoms are pretty foundational to science, atheists, then, must not believe in science.

You can immediately see the errors here. I have misrepresented the atheist’s view in a number of ways, easily “defeating” the distortion. This is not only bad manners, it’s bad thinking—an informal fallacy called a “straw man.” Erect a caricature of someone’s view (the straw man), then easily knock the scarecrow down.

This is precisely what atheists continue to do with “faith.” Peter Boghossian is typical. “The word ‘faith’” he writes, “is a very slippery pig…. Malleable definitions allow faith to slip away from critique.”[ix] He’s right on this point, of course. Definitions should not be malleable. Twisting the definition of faith to suit his own purposes, though, is not the answer, just as twisting the definition of atheism (by Christians or by atheists) is equally illicit. Boghossian himself acknowledges he’s redefining the term to suit his purposes.[x] Don’t let atheists do it.

Boghossian defines the “faith virus”[xi]as either “belief without evidence,” or “pretending to know things you don’t know.”[xii] In fact, “if one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn’t believe the claim on the basis of faith. ‘Faith’ is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief.”[xiii] This, of course, is circular.[xiv]

Clearly, faith is critical to Christianity, so it’s an obvious target. Let me say respectfully, though, that it does not matter how atheists like Boghossian define faith or even how some misinformed and confused Christians characterize it. It only matters how Christianity itself defines faith. Otherwise, the critic will be jousting with scarecrows. For this we must go back to the Christian’s authority, the Bible.

The biblical accounts are replete with appeals to evidence to justify its claims.[xv] The summary at the end of John’s Gospel should be enough to make this basic point:

Therefore many other signs [miracles] Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (Jn. 20:30–31)

No appeal to blind faith here. Simply put, in the context in which it’s used, the Greek word for biblical faith—pistis—means active trust, and this trust is continually enjoined based on reasons and evidence.

It’s tiresome having to keep correcting this distortion, but you must insist on this definition in your conversations with atheists or you’ll have no grounds for discussion—and little ability to defend your view. Your insistence is based on a simple rule: If someone wants to critique a view, then he has to critique the view itself and not something else.

A single question should suffice to clear the air: “It’s clear we have a different understanding of ‘faith.’ If you are critiquing my view, though, what is more important, your definition of my view or my definition of my view?”

The perpetual distortion of faith by atheists is tied to another misconception.

“Show Me the Money”

There’s a reason atheists insist that Christian faith is blind. They’re convinced there is no evidence for God, so belief in Him is irrational and faith in Him must be a leap. But the assertion is baseless; it’s simply not true.

The easiest way to get to the heart of the issue is to ask probing questions. Here’s my first one: “Precisely, what is irrational about belief in God?” Here I’m looking for specifics. It’s not enough for the atheist to respond, “It’s just dumb.” Exactly what is “dumb” about it?

An irrational belief is one that either contradicts good reason or flies in the face of solid evidence to the contrary, so ask, “How does belief in God violate reason, and what is the evidence against belief in God?”

Any evidence contrary to theism would actually be evidence for atheism, since it’s the only other alternative—in rational terms, either A or non-A, either God or not God. But giving evidence for atheism is precisely what many atheists are trying to avoid with the first maneuver mentioned above.

The question “What exactly is the evidence for atheism and therefore against theism?” is in order here. Some have offered the problem of evil, but objective evil in the world—the only kind of evil that matters in this complaint—ironically turns out to be evidence for God, not against Him, as I demonstrated in the last issue of Solid Ground. I’m open to hearing other suggestions, but the offerings have been thin.

Evidence for God, by contrast, abounds, and tomes have been written detailing it. These include arguments for the beginning of the universe (cosmological arguments, e.g., the Kalam), arguments from obvious design of all sorts in the natural realm (teleological arguments), and arguments based on objective morality (the moral argument), to name just a few. There is Lewis’s argument from desire, there is evidence based on well-documented miracles, and there is historical evidence in support of Jesus’ resurrection.

When an atheist claims there is no evidence, then, I have a few questions for him.

“What specific arguments for God have you considered?”

“I haven’t seen any.”

“Well, if you haven’t considered the arguments for God, how do you know no such evidence exits?”

“Well, I have considered some of them.”

“Good. Then please tell me which ones you’ve thought about and what, in your opinion, is wrong with them. How, specifically, have they failed?”

You might even ask, “What would count as legitimate evidence for God, in your mind?” This query tests the atheist’s intellectual honesty.

These questions are good ones even if you’re not versed in the arguments for God themselves. If the atheist gives any content, make note of it, thank him for it, and tell him you’ll give his ideas some thought. There’s no obligation to answer every challenge on the spot, especially if a particular issue is out of your depth. Do some research later, on your own, when the pressure is off.

The key here is to not settle for vague generalities. Make the atheist spell out the specific shortcomings of belief in God, if he can. I want him to be clear on the exact reasons why belief in God is nonsense.

A warning is in order here. Often, there’s a shell game going on. There is a difference between having credible reasons to believe something and having reasons adequate to convince a hardened skeptic. The claim that there is no evidence is not the same as saying the evidence available is not convincing. That’s a different matter. A piece of evidence is an indicator, not necessarily a decisive proof.

Generally, a thoughtful theist’s approach is what’s called abductive reasoning. All things considered, what is the best explanation for the way things are? That’s a matter for thoughtful discussion, not thoughtless dismissal.

When atheists keep asking, “Where’s the evidence?” they’re either not paying attention or they’re misunderstanding the role of evidence—both odd since they identify themselves as the party of reason.

There’s much to discuss with atheists, but clearing the air on these three critical misperceptions—or in one case, outright distortion—is critical to making progress.

Both atheists and Christians make claims. It’s an even playing field in that sense. Both are required to give reasons for their views. We’re ready to do that, demonstrating that our confidence in God is grounded not in wishful thinking but in a body of evidence that needs to be addressed rather than dismissed as naught.

Use these questions as friendly probes in conversation. They’re formidable tools to keep you in the driver’s seat of otherwise difficult interactions with those trying to undermine the very foundation of Christianity: God.

---

[i] “U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 17, 2019.

[ii] Peter Boghossian, A Manual for Creating Atheists (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013). Find my response to Boghossian’s project in “Tactics for Atheists,” Solid Ground, May-June 2019, at str.org.

[iii] Gregory Koukl, Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, 10th Anniversary Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019).

[iv] See “Street Tactics I,” Solid Ground, Jan-Feb 2020, at str.org.

[v] Standouts include Turek and Geisler’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, J. Warner Wallace’s God’s Crime Scene, and Ravi Zacharias’s Can Man Live without God?

[vi] Often atheists will reflexively invoke the problem of evil. In the last issue of Solid Ground I gave tactics to deal with that challenge.

[vii] I owe this line of thinking to my philosopher friend Douglas Geivett.

[viii] This would be an intellectually honest answer, unless he can offer a fourth option, which he can’t since it doesn’t exist.

[ix] Boghossian, 22–23.

[x] Ibid., 80.

[xi] Ibid., 68.

[xii] Ibid., 23-24.

[xiii] Ibid., 23.

[xiv] I go into detail on Boghossian’s mangling of “faith” in “Tactics for Atheists,” Solid Ground, May-June 2019.

[xv] Whether or not a critic believes the accounts is irrelevant to the question. My point here is only that, since the Bible offers reasons for faith, biblical faith is not blind. Whether those reasons are persuasive to a skeptic or not is a different issue.

Read More