top of page

The "Columbo" Tactic


Now more than ever it seems there is a great need for committed ambassadors for Christ. To this end, there are three aspects to being a good ambassador - information (knowledge), strategy, to be applied diplomatically (wisdom), and character (virtue). First Peter 3:15 exhorts us to be always ready to defend the faith we possess, to give an accounting of the hope within us, “yet with gentleness and reverence” (emphasis mine). It is thus not the objective of Christians as good ambassadors to “beat up” dissenters or to make them look bad, but instead to let our conversations “be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that [we] may know how to answer everyone” (Col. 4:6). With that in mind, there are various tactics at the Christian’s disposal. One of my favorites is Greg Koukl’s “Columbo” tactic.


For those of you unfamiliar, Columbo was a television series aired in the U.S. in the 1970s. Its title character, Lt. Frank Columbo, is a homicide detective with a rather unique investigative style. While he often appears borderline inept, he is actually quite effective at solving cases by bumbling around and asking questions.


The key to the “Columbo” tactic for the Christian is not to be on the defensive any more but to instead take the offensive in a disarming way by dismantling the other person’s viewpoint with carefully selected, innocuous questions. This tactic goes to the issue of burden of proof. Christians are not the only ones with an obligation to give answers. It is incumbent upon us to put the burden back on the person who makes a claim. The person who makes the claim has the obligation to defend it.


This tactic can be especially useful at work, where Christians are often prohibited from witnessing to co-workers. Instead of making statements and declaring things to be so, one can just ask questions that challenge their fundamental principles and ideas that have religious and/or moral ramifications. And by asking the right questions, one can easily get all kinds of work done for the progress of the Gospel without ever preaching and at the same time show just how poorly thought through their views actually are.


Now, there are two approaches to the “Columbo” tactic. The first is the bumbling, inept Lt. Columbo style already mentioned. Here the Christian would use a self-effacing attitude to draw people out. One could say things like, “I am confused about that; did Paul say that?” It is not in your face. Instead, questions are used to lead people in a direction. For example, you may say, “Professor, you said the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales. How did you reach that conclusion?” This avoids a power struggle. If he attempts to switch the burden of proof back onto you by challenging you to prove the Bible is the word of God, simply say, “It does not matter what I believe. You made a claim, and I want to know what your evidence for that is.” In short, do not take the bait to switch the burden of proof back onto you.


The second approach is a bit more aggressive. Here you would ask questions to surface certain information, much like an attorney in a courtroom. And like any good attorney, do not ask any questions to which you do not already know the answers. These questions take people to problems in their views. For example, “How do you know that?” Or, “Why do you believe that?” Or, “Why should I believe your point?” One example of this approach would be responding to someone with a modified pro-life stance when he says, “I am personally against abortion, but I do not think we should pass any laws against it. It is an individual’s choice.” Simply ask, “Why are you personally against it?” Most often, the reply will be, “It kills a human child, but I do not think I should impose my belief on others.” An appropriate reply here would be, “Let me repeat this back to you: ‘Abortion kills an innocent human child and women should be allowed to do that.’ Please correct me if I misunderstood you.” This takes the spin off the statement and reframes it in such a way that the person has to face it as the barbaric statement that it truly is.


For the beginner, a foundational “Columbo” strategy can be useful; a simple sequence of key questions can go a long way toward ferreting out truth from fiction. “What do you mean by that?” This gets at what people believe. But be sure not to commit a straw man fallacy. Be sure you understand their answer correctly so that you can address it accurately. “How did you come to that conclusion?” This gets at the reasons he has for what he believes. It draws the person out and gives him a chance to think, too. “Have you ever considered…?” Give the person an alternative, something else to chew on, a perspective he had not previously considered. For example, to counter the view that Jesus spent time in India studying Hinduism, “Have you ever considered that Jesus quoted the Old Testament but not the Vedas? And how did he get to India? Have you considered that maybe He did not go to India? Since He was strongly against idolatry, why would He go to a land full of idols?”

Single post: Blog_Single_Post_Widget
bottom of page