Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

From Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.  This article originally appeared in LifeWay: Biblical Solutions for Life.  For a more in-depth treatment, see his book Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. 

Whenever you find yourself reading this, I challenge you to do the following three things: (1) Memorize these questions; (2) Teach someone else these questions; while (3) Make opportunities to interact with others with these questions

3 Key Open-Ended Questions 

The most effective question you can ask in most circumstances is some variation of “How do you know?” or “Why should I believe what you believe?” Kevin Bywater of Summit Ministries has offered a three-step formulation of this approach that can tame the most belligerent critic.

•  The first is a clarification question: “What do you mean by that?” It’s delivered in a mild, genuinely inquisitive fashion.

This question accomplishes a couple of things. First, it immediately engages the non-believer (or the believer, if the difference of opinion is an in-house, theological point) in an interactive way. Second, it’s flattering because you’ve expressed a genuine interest in knowing more about the other’s view. Third, it forces him to think more carefully–maybe for the first time–about exactly what he does mean. Fourth, it gives you valuable information, so be sure to pay attention to the response.

• Here’s the second question: “Now, how did you come to that conclusion?”

This is a gentler variation of “Where did you get your facts?” Though it’s similar in content, it has a nicer tone, graciously assuming the non-Christian has actually thought through the issue carefully instead of just making an assertion.The additional information he gives you puts you in a better position to assess his view. You now know what he thinks, but you also know how he thinks. In addition, he’s also tipped you off about the way he reasons, giving you valuable information on how to proceed if you choose to.

• Transition: I say, “If you choose to…” because you may not want to move forward just then, nor are you obliged to. You don’t always have to hit a home run. Sometimes just getting on base will do, and the first two questions accomplish that.

•  If you want to proceed, your third question suggests an alternative. Ask, “Have you ever considered…,” and then finish the sentence in a way appropriate to the issue.

Offer an alternative view that gently challenges his beliefs, possibly exploiting a point of weakness you uncovered in the answers to your first two questions.  Of course, this last step requires you to have an option you can explain clearly that gives him reason to abandon his view for a better answer.

Reminder 

Remember, the one making the claim shoulders the burden of proof. For far too long we’ve let non-Christians contrive fanciful challenges, then sit back and watch us squirm. If they tell the story, it’s their job to defend it. It’s not our job to refute it.

Example

Once in a restaurant in Seattle, I got into a chat about religion with the waitress. My comments were all met with an approving nod until I said, “When it comes to religion, people believe a lot of very foolish things.” Then a shadow of disapproval crossed her face. 

“That’s an oppressive view, not letting people believe what they want to believe.”

Now, much can be said about this simple remark. For example, did you notice how just challenging a view was seen as a threat to personal liberty, a “forcing” of my beliefs on others? I ignored that problem, though, and zeroed in on a more fundamental flaw. I asked a simple question.

“So you’re saying I’m wrong then?”

She balked. “No…uh, I’m…uh…I’m just trying to understand your view.”

I chuckled. “Be honest; admit it. You think I’m wrong, oppressive. If I’m not wrong, then why are you correcting me?”

It was clear that even she believed some people were wrong (me, in this case). Like many who espouse this confused sense of tolerance, though, the waitress couldn’t play by her own rules. I tried to clarify.

Read the rest of this entry »

From The Celtic Way of Evangelism (pgs. 53-54)

Bluntly stated, the Roman model for reaching people (who are “civilized” enough) is:

1. Present the Christian message;
2. Invite them to decide to believe in Christ and become Christians; and
3. If they decide positively, welcome them into the church and its fellowship

The Roman  Model seems very logical to us because most American evangelicals are scripted by it!  We explain the gospel, they accept Christ, we welcome them into the church. Presentation, Decision, Assimilation.  What could be more logical than that?

But you already know enough to infer the (contrasting) Celtic model for reaching people:

1. You first establish community with people, or bring them into the fellowship of your community of faith;
2. Within fellowship, you engage in conversation, ministry, prayer, and worship; and
3. In time, as they discover that they now believe, you invite them to commit.

We can contrast the two models on a chart

Roman Model	Celtic Model
Presentation	Fellowship
Decision	Ministry and Conversations
Fellowship	Belief, Invitation to Commitment

The Celtic model reflects the adage that, for most people, “Christianity is more caught than taught.”

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post: