When you have an idea about something, I may want to consider it. If you offer me your sources for having that idea, I will be more influenced, but not without question. For example, I am the type of Christian who absolutely thinks the Bible is the ultimate source, “this side of heaven.” So, if you wish to have an influence, it is a powerful tool for me if you biblically support your position. I still may not agree with your interpretation of the pertinent texts, but you have at least strengthened my interest.



If you simply cite the university credentials of a person, it will not have the influence you may intend. I have spent too many years dealing with credentialed people from “prestigious” universities, who, I would argue, need more clarity in their thinking.



If you use “cleverness,” you have provided even less of an atmosphere for influence. So often cleverness substitutes for thought.



Now, I have learned from people who have used clever slogans, who don’t study the Bible, and who are Ivy leaguers, but it wasn’t their cleverness, their not using the scripture, nor their schooling that had an impact. It’s their thinking.

Had lunch with 24 year old friend Thom today and he shared an interesting insight. Smoking is an important sign of teenage rebellion. As a result, the anti-smoking ads, in particular TRUTH, are actually a tool that will increase teenage smoking. They may be extreme and cutting edge, but they just make the case for smoking as rebellion even better.

“Don’t you know smoking is bad for you?”

“Exactly!”

We also see way more cigarette “commercials” with the anti-smoking campaign, than we did when tobacco companies were limited to their access of many media venues. It will be interesting to see the long-term impact of these anti-smoking ads.

“Tolerance”- allowing a conduct or point of view of someone you disagree with and showing them respect in the process.

When people use the term “tolerance” correctly, it is refreshing. Usually people mistake its meaning by considering “tolerance” as “neutrality” or “everyone has an equally valid viewpoint.” Someone is “intolerant” if they think they are right and someone else is wrong. On the contrary, in order to be tolerant, you have to disagree with sommeone else, by definition. I cannot show tolerance for someone I agree with.

So let’s be careful with our language. Someone isn’t being “intolerant” because they disagree with you, unless they are specifically trying to find ways to silence you.

I think Christians have brought some cloudiness into the world’s thinking. First, let me speak about the issue and then I’ll show how Christians may be part of the problem.

There is false logic called, “Moral equivalency.” In this way of thinking, one person or group’s nastiness or nasty behavior is equal to the others. So, for example, we hear the Palestinians and the Israelis are no different. After the revelation of prison abuse, the USA is no different than Iraq under Sadam. How did we get to this non-logical thinking? Here is the Christian contribution.

One of our key verses from the Bible is Romans 3:23.

“For all have sinned; all fall short of God’s glorious standard.”

This is where the confusion lies. Compared to Jesus, there is moral equivalency with people. None of us measures up. Compared to Jesus, for example, the difference between me and Mao is microscopic. But, the difference between Mao and myself on a strictly human level, well I am not connected to 35 million or however many deaths as Mao is.

So we must not confuse categories. I will argue that from a strict human standard, some people ultimately bring more good into the lives of others and some people bring more evil into the lives of others. But compared to Jesus, our differences pale compared to his infinite goodness.

It all depends on what you are comparing.

When you are dealing with people with another viewpoint, how do you prevent them from setting up a wall against you quickly without considering your viewpoint? The most helpful method I have seen and one that has worked well for me is from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason ministries, the “Columbo” method.



It goes something like this.



When you are addressing an issue, ask the other person two lines of questions first.



1) “What do you mean by that? Tell me more.”



After they have spoken about the topic, ask,



2) “How did you come to this understanding? How can I find out more about that? What are helpful resources I could check out? ”



In this way you will see if they have thought this through, are simply parroting someone else, or maybe just stating an unsupported opinion. Now, you know where they are coming from and you have to make a quick decision. Three choices.



1) They may ask you what you think and then you can answer.

2) They may seem defensive or irritable, to which you reply, “Thanks, I’ll look into that further. Maybe we can talk about it again.”

3) Or if they seem open, say, “Have you ever considered…” and then give your view.



The question-asking Columbo style, like the TV detective, asks questions. Someone isn’t that interested in what you think unless they know you are interested in what they think. Notice you aren’t challenging anything they are saying; just being an attentive listener. If they give you an opening to graciously respond- use it.