Columbo Tactics - Part 2

This is the second part of a post that was recorded on Sept. 14 regarding the Columbo Tactic, "the queen mother of all tactics" in effectively getting someone to think about what they believe about faith related issues. If you haven't read that post, read it first before proceeding with this one. This is another excerpt from apologist Greg Koukl's "Tactics in Defending the Faith."

Koukl says that there are two basic executions of the Columbo tactic:

1. Seemingly bumbling and inept, Columbo style, which involves using a number of phrases to introduce your question, softening your approach in the proces:
- "I'm just curious...."
- "Help me out because I'm trying to understand you on this...."
- "I'm a little confused on something...."
- "Maybe you can clear this up for me...."
- "Something about this thing bothers me...."
- "Maybe I'm missing something....."

2. Confrontational and aggressive, which should be used sparingly and with the important rule of never askiong a question you don't know the answer to. This could help someone dig their own grave on an issue, but it could also dig your own grave on the relationship. Not a good thing! This goes against the 1 Peter 3:15 "gentleness and respect" advice, so be very careful, if you ever use this second execution of the Columbo tactic.

Here's an example of the Columbo tactic that Greg provides with a waitress in Seattle who says she's very supportive of his interest in religion until he begins to act like his religious views were right and others were wrong:

Greg: When it comes to religion, people believe a lot of very foolish things.
Waitress: That's oppressive, not letting people believe what they want to believe.
Greg: Do you think I'm wrong then? (Columbo tactic)
Waitress: No, I'm just trying to understand your view.
Greg: Be honest; admit it. You think I'm wrong. That's OK; it doesn't bother me. If I am not wrong, then why are you correcting me? And if you think I am wrong, why are you oppressing me? (Columbo question)
Waitress (ignoring his question, says): All religions are basically the same after all. (note, she makes claim)
Greg: Oh? In what way? (he's shifting the burden of proof to her)
Waitress: Uh.....
Greg: Judaism teaches Jesus is not the Messiah, and Christianity teaches He is, right? Jesus is either the Messiah or He's not, right? Then either the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong, or the Christians are right and the Jews are wrong. But under no circumstances can they both be right and "basically the same", right?
Waitress (again, ignoring his question): Well, no one can ever know the truth about religion (another claim).
Greg: Why would you ever believe a thing like that? (Columbo question)
Waitress: The Bible's been changed and retranslated so many times over the centuries, you can't trust it. (another claim)
Greg: Oh? How do you know that? Did you study (biblical) textual criticism (a study of biblical texts)? (Columbo question)
Waitress: I feel like you are backing me into a corner..... (maybe it was in the corner of truth?)

This example shows us how to gather information, reverse the burden of proof and exploit a weakness without requiring you to be defensive at all. Thanks Greg Koukl for the work you're doing in Christian apologetics.

Check out another of his tactics called the Suicide Tactic, which is perfect for self-refuting arguments. For example, the phrase "there are no absolutes" is self-refuting. Are you sure? Absolutely. It's these little tools that can help us so much in our everyday conversations with skeptics. - Mary