The Question-Asking Method

What you'll learn

Use the three Columbo questions to gather information, clarify claims and expose weak reasoning
Apply the burden of proof correctly so you do not carry weight that belongs to your opponent
Identify self-defeating ('suicide') views and use 'taking the roof off' to show where a view leads

Why questions beat speeches

Many new apologists think success means having a ready-made speech for every objection. Greg Koukl's Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (2009; updated edition 2019) offers a different approach. Instead of trying to win with a monologue, you steer with questions.

Questions do several things at once. They show genuine interest, which lowers defensiveness. They gather information so you know what the person actually believes. They put the other person in the position of explaining and defending their own view. And they keep you safe: you cannot be accused of misrepresenting someone when you are asking them to speak for themselves.

Koukl distinguishes strategy (the big-picture knowledge of the Christian case) from tactics (the moment-by-moment moves in a conversation). This lesson is about tactics. You do not need to know everything to be useful; you need to know how to ask good questions.

Why does the lesson say questions often work better than ready-made speeches? Give at least two reasons.Show answer

Questions show genuine interest, which lowers defensiveness, and they gather information about what the person actually believes. They put the other person in the position of explaining and defending their own view. They also keep you safe, because you cannot be accused of misrepresenting someone you are asking to speak for themselves.

Show interest, lower defences
Gather information
They explain their view
Avoid misrepresenting

What is the difference between strategy and tactics in Koukl's approach?Show answer

Strategy is the big-picture knowledge of the Christian case. Tactics are the moment-by-moment moves in a conversation. You do not need to know everything to be useful; you need to know how to ask good questions.

Strategy = big-picture case
Tactics = conversational moves
Don't need to know everything

The Columbo tactic

The name comes from the 1970s television detective Lieutenant Columbo, who seemed bumbling but kept asking 'Just one more thing...' until the culprit had trapped himself. Koukl's Columbo tactic has three steps, each with a key question.

Step 1: Gather information. Ask, 'What do you mean by that?' When someone says 'The Bible has been changed', 'All religions are the same' or 'Science has disproved God', you do not yet know what they mean. Changed how? Same in what way? Which scientific discovery? This question often reveals that the claim is vaguer than it sounded.
Step 2: Reverse the burden of proof. Ask, 'How did you come to that conclusion?' Many people have never examined why they believe their objection. This question shows whether there is an argument at all, or just an assertion they picked up online.
Step 3: Use leading questions. Once you know their view and their reasons, ask questions that gently point out a problem: 'If all religions are basically the same, how do you reconcile Islam saying Jesus did not die on the cross with Christianity saying he did?' A leading question lets them discover the weakness themselves, which is far more persuasive than you announcing it.

Name the three steps of the Columbo tactic and the key question for each.Show answer

Step 1 is gathering information, by asking 'What do you mean by that?' Step 2 is reversing the burden of proof, by asking 'How did you come to that conclusion?' Step 3 is using leading questions that gently point out a problem in their view.

Gather: 'What do you mean?'
Reverse burden: 'How did you conclude?'
Leading questions

Someone says, 'All religions are basically the same.' How would you use the Columbo tactic in response?Show answer

First ask what they mean: the same in what way? Then ask how they came to that conclusion, to see whether there is an argument or just an assertion. Then ask a leading question, such as how they reconcile Islam saying Jesus did not die on the cross with Christianity saying he did, so they discover the weakness themselves.

Ask what they mean
Ask for their reasons
Leading question on the cross
Let them discover it

The burden of proof

A simple rule governs fair discussion: whoever makes a claim bears the burden of supporting it. If you say 'God exists', you should be ready to give reasons. But if your friend says 'Jesus was a myth' or 'The Gospels were written centuries later', those are claims too, and the burden is on them.

Many sceptics present their objections as if they were neutral and the Christian must disprove them. Do not accept that arrangement. A friendly 'How did you come to that conclusion?' moves the burden back where it belongs. You are not dodging; you are just insisting that both sides play by the same rules.

Be careful with yourself, too. Do not overclaim. 'There is strong historical evidence that the tomb was empty' is a claim you can carry. 'Every historian agrees Jesus rose' is not true, and you will be rightly called out.

Explain the burden of proof rule in your own words, and why 'How did you come to that conclusion?' is not a dodge.Show answer

Whoever makes a claim bears the burden of supporting it, whether the Christian says 'God exists' or the sceptic says 'Jesus was a myth'. Many sceptics present objections as neutral and expect the Christian to disprove them. Asking how they reached their conclusion simply insists that both sides play by the same rules; it is fairness, not dodging.

Claimant bears the burden
Sceptics make claims too
Same rules for both
Not dodging

Suicide views and taking the roof off

Some claims self-destruct. Koukl calls these suicide views. The classic example is 'There is no truth.' Is that statement true? If it is, it is false. Other examples: 'You shouldn't force your morality on others' (which is a moral rule being forced on you), 'Only what science can prove is true' (which science cannot prove), and 'You can't know anything about God' (which claims to know something about God). Koukl distinguishes formal suicide (the statement refutes itself), practical suicide (it cannot be lived consistently), and sibling rivalry (two claims in the same view contradict each other, such as saying God should stop all evil and also that God should never interfere with our freedom). He adds a fourth, infanticide, where an argument depends on the very thing it denies, as when someone uses objective moral evil to argue against the God who grounds objective morality.

Taking the roof off is a way of testing a view by following it to its logical conclusion. The ancient name is reductio ad absurdum (Latin for 'reduction to absurdity'). The phrase comes from Francis Schaeffer (The God Who Is There, 1968): people shelter under a 'roof' that protects them from the full consequences of their beliefs, and gently removing it lets them feel where their view really leads. If someone says 'Morality is just whatever a culture decides', ask, 'So if a culture decided slavery was good, it would be good for them?' If they say no, their view has a problem. If they say yes, they have revealed how costly their view really is.

This tactic connects closely with presuppositional apologetics (Foundations of Defence, Lesson 2), which asks whether a worldview can account for logic, morality and science. Koukl is not a presuppositionalist, but his tools fit comfortably alongside that method.

What is a 'suicide' view? Give one example and explain why it refutes itself.Show answer

A suicide view is a claim that self-destructs. For example, 'There is no truth' claims to be true, so if it is true it is false. Similarly, 'Only what science can prove is true' cannot itself be proved by science, and 'You shouldn't force your morality on others' forces a moral rule on you.

Claim that self-destructs
Gives a valid example
Explains how it fails by its own standard

Explain 'taking the roof off' and how you would use it on 'Morality is just whatever a culture decides'.Show answer

Taking the roof off, from Francis Schaeffer, means following a view to its logical conclusion (reductio ad absurdum), gently removing the shelter that protects someone from its consequences. You might ask, 'So if a culture decided slavery was good, it would be good for them?' If they say no, their view has a problem; if they say yes, they have shown how costly their view really is.

Follow view to its conclusion
Schaeffer's 'roof'
Slavery question
Either answer is revealing

A stone in their shoe

Koukl offers a modest goal for any single conversation: you do not need to convert someone in one sitting; you want at least to leave a stone in their shoe, a question or idea they keep thinking about after you part. This frees you from pressure, because conversion is God's work and you can trust the Holy Spirit with the results (1 Cor 3:6-7). But a modest goal is not a small aim. The stone should point towards Christ, and wherever the person is open you should bring the conversation to the gospel itself: who Jesus is, what he did, and his call to repent and believe. Lesson 5 shows how to do that from any starting point.

A simple stone might be: 'If there is no God, what makes anything actually wrong?' or 'If Jesus really did rise from the dead, what would that mean for you?' or 'Have you ever read the Gospel of Mark for yourself? I'd be curious what you think of it.'

Finally, practise. Columbo questions feel awkward at first. Try one per day in ordinary conversation: when someone states an opinion, ask 'What do you mean by that?' and listen. You will be amazed how much you learn and how often a gentle question does the work a lecture never could.

What does it mean to leave 'a stone in their shoe', and how does that modest goal relate to bringing the conversation to the gospel?Show answer

It means leaving a question or idea the person keeps thinking about after you part, rather than trying to convert them in one sitting. This frees you from pressure, because conversion is God's work and you can trust the Spirit with the results (1 Cor 3:6-7). But the stone should point towards Christ, and wherever the person is open you should bring the conversation to the gospel itself: who Jesus is, what he did and his call to repent and believe.

Question they keep pondering
No pressure to convert in one sitting
Trust the Spirit (1 Cor 3:6-7)
Stone points to Christ; go to the gospel when open

In their own words

“The 'just asking questions' sceptic: raises objection after objection without ever stating or defending their own view.” (Common conversational tactic; counter with 'What do you believe, and why?')

“The burden shift: 'Prove God exists, but I don't need to prove anything because atheism is just a lack of belief.'” (Common online atheist framing; see the 'lack of belief' definition of atheism)

“The steamroller: interrupting and overwhelming you with a rapid series of claims so you cannot respond to any.” (Named and addressed in Koukl, Tactics (steamroller chapter))

“The credentials move: 'Scholars agree...' or 'My professor said...' used to close down discussion rather than give reasons.” (Koukl, Tactics (Rhodes Scholar tactic))

Key texts

Colossians 4:5-6: Walk in wisdom towards outsiders; let speech be gracious, seasoned with salt, so you know how to answer each person. Tailored answers require good questions.
Proverbs 18:13: Answering before listening is folly. The Columbo tactic is this verse in practice.
Proverbs 26:4-5: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, yet answer him according to his folly. Refuse their assumptions, and also show where their assumptions lead (taking the roof off).
Matthew 22:41-46: Jesus silences his opponents with a single question about Psalm 110. A model of a leading question.
Mark 11:27-33: When challenged, Jesus answers with a question that exposes his opponents' motives.
1 Corinthians 3:6-7: We plant and water; God gives the growth. Freedom to aim for a stone in the shoe rather than a conversion in one conversation.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Asking questions is just a manipulative trick. Why not just say what you believe?”Show a response

That's a fair concern, and if questions were used to hide my view, it would be manipulative. But I'm happy to tell you what I believe at any point; I'm a Christian, and I think Jesus rose from the dead. I ask questions because I don't want to assume what you think, and I'd rather understand you than argue against a version of you that doesn't exist. Jesus himself asked hundreds of questions in the Gospels. A good question respects you: it lets you speak for yourself and lets you test your own ideas. If you'd prefer, you can ask me questions too. I think that's how honest conversations should work, both ways.

“I don't have a burden of proof. Atheism is just a lack of belief, like not believing in fairies.”Show a response

If you simply lack a belief and make no claims at all, then you're right, there's nothing to defend. But usually people who say this also claim things like 'There's no evidence for God' or 'Science explains everything', and those are claims that need support. Also, on that definition, my cat is an atheist, which tells us nothing about whether God exists. The more interesting question is: what do you think is actually true about the world? Do you think the universe is all that exists? If so, that's a view we can both examine. I'm happy to carry my burden for Christianity if you'll share what you think and why.

“Your 'suicide' trick is just wordplay. When I say there's no absolute truth, everyone knows what I mean.”Show a response

Maybe, so tell me what you mean. Often people mean something good, like 'we should be humble about what we know' or 'people see things from different perspectives'. I agree with both. But if you mean literally that no statement is true for everyone, then that statement itself would be a claim that's true for everyone, and so it can't be right. It's not a trick; it's taking your words seriously. And it matters, because if there's no truth, then nobody is ever wrong, including people who do terrible things. I suspect you don't actually believe that. So which do you mean: the humble version or the strong one?

“Who are you to judge what I believe? Everyone should just be free to believe whatever works for them.”Show a response

I agree you are free to believe what you choose, and I'm not trying to force anything on you. Can I ask what you mean by 'judge'? If you mean condemning you as a person, I don't want to do that. But notice that 'no one should judge other people's beliefs' is itself a judgement about other people's beliefs, including mine. So we both think some beliefs are better than others; the real question is which ones and why. Also, 'whatever works for you' fits tastes, like ice cream, but not claims about reality. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't, whatever works for either of us. I'd love to hear what you think about that question, if you're open to it.

“I don't need reasons. I just feel that my beliefs are right. That's my truth, and you have yours.”Show a response

I respect that your beliefs matter deeply to you, and feelings are part of being human. Can I ask what you mean by 'my truth'? If you mean 'what seems true to me' or 'my experience', I can accept that we each have our own experiences. But if you mean something can be true for you and false for me at the same time, that gets tricky with claims about reality. Islam says Jesus did not die on the cross; Christianity says he did. They cannot both be true, however sincerely people feel them. How did you come to the beliefs you hold? I'm genuinely curious, and I'm happy to tell you why I believe what I do.

Written task

Write a realistic 300-400 word conversation in which a coworker says, 'I think all religions basically teach the same thing, so it doesn't matter which one you follow.' Use all three Columbo steps, label each step in brackets, identify any self-refuting element, and end by leaving a 'stone in their shoe'.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Uses all three Columbo steps correctly and in a natural order
Shows real listening: the coworker's answers shape the next question
Uses at least one accurate, specific contrast between religions (e.g. the cross in Islam vs Christianity)
Identifies a self-defeating or roof-off problem without sounding smug
Ends with a memorable, gracious stone in the shoe