The Westley Defense Part 2: Just because they want you dead is no reason to be rude. [Jay Watts]

SPOILER ALERT: If you have not seen The Princess Bride then do not read this if you don't want plot twists exposed. In addition, what's your problem?! Go watch it. It is a great movie that gets better and better every time you see it.

Inigo Montoyo is part of a group that has kidnapped the Princess Buttercup. Westley chases them down in the guise of the Dread Pirate Roberts. Vizzini, the leader of the kidnappers, cuts the rope that Westley is using to climb the Cliffs of Insanity in an effort to kill him. It doesn't work, and Westley continues to defy all things conceivable in his pursuit of his true love Buttercup. Vizzini and the giant Fezzik take Buttercup away, and Inigo waits behind to kill Westley. (With his left hand, it is the only way it will be a challenge)

Inigo gets impatient and looks over the cliff edge at Westley climbing and hollers down to him, “Hello there! Slow going?”

And here we see one of my favorite aspects of Westley's engagement style. His answer is, “Look I don't mean to be rude, but this is not as easy as it looks so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't distract me.”

Inigo apologizes to which Wesley responds with a polite, “Thank you.”

Westley gives us a model of something important; how we start a conversation matters. Throughout the film, most of the people that Westley encounters intend to kill him, but he rarely lets that fact impact his impossible cordiality and manners. Inigo is admittedly only waiting around to kill him, and yet Westley still sees no value in rudeness. He is polite to the albino in the Pit of Despair and cleverly charming to Humperdink after he and Buttercup emerge from the Fire Swamp.

Angry questioners often rear their heads during the Q&A portion of a presentation. Sometimes I see them stewing during my talk, glaring at me with their arms crossed. They can be both insulting and embarrassingly wrong in their arguments.

One young woman recently stood up, crossed her arms, and said in an aggressive tone, “If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” The audience of 400 students immediately got restless and ramped up their emotions to match hers.

Bad attitudes left unchecked can infect a conversation from the outset. Our goal is to dial down emotions and replace them with thoughtful arguments. We must intentionally communicate respect with tone, words, and even our body language. We tend to mirror the gestures of the people with whom we are talking, Try it some time. Start touching your face and the people you are talking to will often do the same. Cross your arms and they will do the same. This young lady injected hostility into the discussion and it immediately transformed the audience.

I studied martial arts for years. One aspect of training was deescalation; how to avoid a fight. Body language and position are crucial to successful deescalation. Viccini holds a dagger to Buttercup's throat and Westley approaches with his hands open in front of his body. That is exactly what we were taught in training. Hands out, open, and in front of you. Slide toward angles that would be difficult for people to hit you from while assuring them you do not want to fight. It's amazing the impact this simple technique has on angry and aggressive people. I have seen someone seemingly intent on violence get confused, calm down, and then just walk away.

In deescalation, the correct posture communicates three key messages. (1) I don't want to fight, but I won't cower away. This is important because the person hoping to scare you or bully you sees that it won't work without you having to immediately match his rage in order to get that point across. (2) It communicates that I don't want to fight, but I do know how to if you force the point. Sliding into bad attack angle is key to delivering this message. Most untrained fighters want to load up and throw a haymaker. When you slide into a place they have trouble accomplishing this from, a person who genuinely wants to hit you will usually attempt to move to a better position. The more you move him into a bad place the more he begins to understand you know how fighting works. This is not a welcome message. (3) Finally, all of this sets you up to be in a good position from which you can defend yourself  should it become necessary.

Obviously these techniques do not directly apply to arguing. It would be bizarre to position yourself to physically strike those who disagree with you, but the correct body language combined with a gracious start accomplishes many of the same goals.

Back to our angry student; I immediately asked the audience to please quiet down a bit with my hands in front of me and open. I informed the audience that I wanted to respectfully answer her and that would be hard to do so without their help. This calmed the audience down. I then repeated her question and asked her if I correctly understood her. She confirmed that I did. I affirmed that I absolutely respect and trust her with all sorts of choices, but that we seem to disagree on the nature of the choice in question. By this time, the audience was respectfully listening and her arms were uncrossed and open. Perhaps in response to the openness that I brought to our conversation, or perhaps she just relaxed a little, but the end result was the same. Our pleasant and respectful exchange was up and running.

Some students approached me after the most hostile Q&A audience I ever talked with. They said the following, “That was great. So many people just tell us what to think and that we are wrong. So many people seem to be lecturing us. You talked to us, laid out a case for your position, and challenged us to think about it. You even told those pro-choice students the best people to read to see counter arguments to the position you argued. From the beginning you were respectful.” (Emphasis mine)

Next, we will talk about Westley's respect during confrontations and his willingness to recognize the good points of those with whom he is locked in a life or death struggle. Or in Westley terms, “Truly you have a dizzying intellect.”

(Post Script: The rest of my answer to that young woman went as follows: I asked her if she thought it would be OK for her to choose to walk across the room and seize any item she wanted from one of her classmates. She objected that this wasn't the same thing as abortion. I pointed out that she is correct in that, but I wasn't claiming it was. I simply wanted to determine if she thought that taking anything she wanted from a classmate was something she could choose to do. She said no that would be stealing. I said I agree that taking in that sense falls into the moral category of stealing. And now we both recognize that there are choices that we cannot legitimately make due to the moral nature of those choices. There are reasonable limits on what we can do even with and to our own bodies. So both of us respect the legitimate free choices of others while recognizing that some choices are not legitimately ours to make, like the choices to steal or rape someone. What we do not agree on is whether abortion is a legitimate choice or whether it falls into the category of those choices that ought to be reasonably restricted. I pointed out that I used science and philosophy to make the case that abortion is objectively immoral. If she wished to counter those arguments she needed to address the scientific identification of the unborn as human beings from fertilization or the philosophical case identifying them as morally valuable. I pointed out that David Boonin offered what I think are the best arguments for her side in his book A Defense of Abortion. As much as I learn from Boonin, I still think the counter arguments offered by philosophers like Kaczor and Beckwith ultimately carry the day, but she was free to make up her own mind on that. I closed by cautioning that what both sides can't do is replace the hard work of arguing and understanding each other with slogans.)

Daddy-Daughter London Trip, and its Application to the LTI Speaking Team [SK]

Facebook deleted the original post, so I'm re-posting it here...

September 2013

Dear Friends,
It’s the middle of the night and I’m typing away somewhere over the Atlantic. My coach seat is cramped and if the guy in front of me reclines, my screen is toast! Nevertheless, I’m not the least bit grumpy. How can I be? I’m once again on my way to London!

I love the city. Samuel Johnson once said that when a man tires of London, he tires of life. I won’t go that far, but I will say that each time I visit, I’m too excited to sleep on the plane ride getting there. This particular trip is even more joyous. Thanks to frequent flyer miles, my wife Stephanie and daughter Emily Rose (age 12) are flying over to join me once I’m done speaking. What a vacation it will be!

This will be Emily’s first trip to England, an event she’s dreamed of for two years. During that time, we’ve had daddy-daughter tea parties with real English tea and real English squash. We’ve reviewed photos of my past UK trips--the most recent with son Michael. Last month, I taught her to count British currency and together we’ve learned the first two stanzas of “God Save the Queen.” During 6th grade, she carried a Union flag backpack to school nearly everyday. And we haven't forgotten safety: To reinforce the necessity of looking right rather than left when crossing streets, we created a corny line: “When visiting London, you should drink squash not be squashed.”

Lord willing, the two women I cherish most will arrive Sunday morning at 7. I’ve meticulously planned Emily’s first sighting of central London. (Stephanie has been there before.) After dropping bags at the hotel, we’ll take the Underground (Tube) to Westminster Station. Just before exiting the station, I'll direct her to a short set of stairs leading up to street level. As I usher her up the final steps, I will take her hand and make her close her eyes. Once at street level, I will say, “okay, look up, girl!” Right there, she’ll take-in a dramatic view of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. The scene will blow her mind! Indeed, that first glimpse from Westminster Station impresses on the visitor an undeniable truth: You are in London!

Yes, I want the city to grip her like it’s gripped me. But as a Christian, I want more for Emily. She must know that her first London sighting points to something far grander than what transpires at Westminster Station. No matter how special that daddy-daughter moment is, it pales in comparison to the day when her Heavenly Father takes her hand and ushers her into His city.

Here over the Atlantic, I’m pondering another ushering, this one involving our LTI speaking team. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t ask myself, “Why would anyone in his or her right mind take a job where you must raise your own support to convey truths that win you zero applause from the prevailing secular culture?" I distinctly remember giving my Churchill speech to Jay and Mike: “I have nothing to offer you but blood, sweat, toil, and tears. Oh, and you get to raise your own funding should I fail to scare you off!”

And they took the job anyway. They did it in large part for the joy of ushering students into a whole new worldview.

The challenges are many. Unlike Emily who was prepped to engage London, many of the students our speakers journey with have not been equipped to engage the ruinous culture lurking outside their own Christian homes. Soon they will arrive on university campuses ill equipped to defend what they claim to believe—especially on pro-life issues!

Some come from homes where the “a” word is unmentionable, perhaps because one or both parents have participated in abortion and have yet to experience the forgiveness found in the Christian gospel. Others attend good churches where Scripture is revered, but pro-life training is non-existent or limited to an annual announcement about the upcoming pregnancy center banquet.

Our speakers meet these students in assemblies and classrooms across the country and usher them into a new realm of understanding. There’s 15-year old Brittany who told us, “I thought pro-life was just plain stupid—and then you showed that video clip.” There’s Jonathan, a 12th grader who couldn’t thank us enough for providing rational arguments. There’s the skeptic’s club at U.C. Berkeley who thanked me for debating abortion intelligently and whose members stuck around for 70 minutes to ask questions. And there’s Audrey, who had an abortion two years ago and cried through the presentation made to her Catholic high school—but afterward wrote to say she’s stopped making excuses and is now trusting Christ to forgive her past.

Throughout the Fall season, an ushering scene reminiscent of Westminster Station will be replayed with much higher stakes at Catholic and Protestant high schools in the U.S. And my team will be in the thick of it. I’m humbled by their willingness to serve along side me.

Pray God strengthens them. For my part, my first stop is this Fall is London, where I’ll train British pro-life advocates to argue their case persuasively. My second stop is Oxford, where I’ll discuss advanced pro-life apologetics with Summit students in that city.

Thank you for financially standing with us. You truly are helping us change minds!

For the King,
Scott Klusendorf

Listening well [Megan]

At the end of August, I presented "The Case for Life" to 200 students ranging from grades 7 to 12. The presentation went well — it was the hour following it, during which students approached me at the front of the auditorium to ask their questions or offer their thoughts, that was nothing short of running the gamut.
I was reminded how very important it is for us, Christ's ambassadors, to be slow to speak, slow to anger, and — above all — to listen well.
I was reminded that I need to ask daily for God to grant me wisdom:
• For the young woman whose anger flared when I didn't answer her question the way she had planned;
• For the young man whose sharp and clever mind took meticulous notes and who came to me with a list of nine probing questions on his paper, and — though he expected each to undermine my argument — was mature enough to carry on a wonderful, 30-minute conversation;
• For the girl whose half-hearted question didn't even make it past her lips before she began to cry.
Each of these encounters could have easily been handled badly. I pray that what I said and did (all the while pleading with the Holy Spirit for help) was received as God intended.
As an advocate for life, you will run into encounters just like the ones above.
As for the first, the young woman was offended by the case I had presented. She attempted to undermine my argument with a personal attack.
You may be tempted to become angry, as I was — Don't. Rather, remember Jesus and his encounters with the Pharisees. There are times when the truth is offensive to some. That is no fault of yours or mine. It simply is.
In this particular scenario, I had an audience, so I felt it was important to point out, as graciously as possible, that her objection did not undo the case I had presented.
She left before I could ask why she seemed so angry. I wish I had had that opportunity.
The young man was a skeptic, probably not a Christian, and was obviously very bright. I got the sense right away that he gives his teachers a run for their money on a regular basis.
But I also got the sense that he was honestly grappling with some of the ideas I had presented, and that, if tempered with maturity and the Holy Spirit, he may one day be a mighty defender of Truth for the Kingdom.
With individuals like this, if you have the time, it is good to patiently handle each objection as it comes. Let your mannerisms set the tone for the conversation. I chose my words and posture carefully so that the conversation became as one between teacher and pupil. Even so, I had the sense that this young man needed to be treated like a young man and not as a child (which is usually the case when it comes to this age group).
The last encounter was one that ripped through me more than the others. It's the encounter you are certain to have if you regularly make the case for your pro-life views. It's the young woman who has just learned the hard truth about the decision she made in the not-so-distant past.
She tried to point out that the unborn have no memories, no conscious thoughts like we do, so doesn't that make them different? It would be worse, she said, to take the life of a toddler because it would be harder somehow. And then she began to cry.
Intellectually, it would have been easy to ask why memories or consciousness make someone more valuable and deserving of a right to life. What about those with amnesia? Or in a coma?
I could pointed out that her second point — that taking the life of a toddler would be harder — begs a question:  "Harder for whom?" Such an objection is selfish, though she didn't see that at the time.
But it was clear that she didn't need my intellectual response — not yet. (I did give it to her, gently, later. Even as I pointed out that I didn't really believe those objections reflected her own views.)
In that moment, she and I needed the very same thing. The Gospel.
Because it was the Gospel that would give me the strength to keep talking, and it was the Gospel that would offer her truth, forgiveness, healing, and more love than she's ever known.
So I took her hand and told her that I could see she was in a lot of pain, and I told her about Jesus, and how He has already fixed everything in the eyes of the Father if she would receive Him, and how we all need the same thing — Him. And I told her she is unspeakably valuable because of Him.
And then I did what may have been, for me, the hardest thing of all. When all of the students went back to class, I left. And I left what I had said and done in God's hands.
That's all any of us can ultimately do.

Our Response: Biola University Apologizes to Pro-Life Student & Affirms Need for Abortion Pictures

Biola university has corrected a wrong and re-affirmed its pro-life commitment. 

Dear Pro-Life Friends and Colleagues –

In early summer, a video was posted on YouTube showing Biola University security confronting student Diana Jimenez over her display of graphic abortion images. The You Tube footage was intercut with a speech on Christian cultural engagement delivered by Biola President Barry Corey. The result was an edited video which made Biola appear hypocritical regarding its stated pro-life commitment. The video caused a tremendous stir in the pro-life community. Some people rallied to Biola’s side. Others called into question whether Biola was actually pro-life (and some, hysterically, whether Biola was Christian). As heads of pro-life organizations who train and consult, we were very troubled by what we saw. Many people, particularly those who knew that two of us are Biola alumi, wanted to know our reaction. They were troubled by our refusal to publicly comment.

What they did not know was that over the past seven weeks, we had been working with Biola leadership as they acknowledged mistakes and expressed their desire to help craft a better policy. With the release of a letter from President Corey – apologizing to Diana Jimenez publicly and to the pro-life community generally –we are now in a position to publicly comment.

Like most pro-life advocates, upon reviewing the video, we were stunned to see the way in which Ms. Jimenez was treated. We were deeply dismayed by the decision of Susan Elliot, the director of the nursing program, to refuse Ms. Jimenez letters of recommendation from any of the nursing faculty – despite the fact that she was not only a student in good standing, but so much so that her picture was used on the nursing program’s web page (though it was scrubbed right after the incident). Near the end of the video, seen, as of this writing, nearly 17,500 times, an update frame occurs to alert viewers to Elliot’s actions regarding the witholding of letters of recommendation. It concerns us that, even though Elliot’s retributory action was overturned by the administration many weeks ago, there has been to date no additional editing of the video to reflect this change.

Ultimately, the problem at Biola was not about the university’s statement of faith regarding the sanctity of human life. The real problem at Biola was that a fourth-year nursing student could complete that program, yet remain totally unaware of the grisly reality of abortion or the persuasive arguments that support a pro-life perspective. It took exposure to those images, displayed at a student-sponsored pro-life event which drew only a handful of participants, to awaken her to the need to rouse her fellow students to action. And if Diana’s ignorance of abortion was typical in Nursing, what about students in Music, Communication, English, or Biblical Studies?

As a Christian university, Biola understands confession, repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration. President Corey has confessed Biola’s wrongdoing in a humble, frank, and commendable way. And his letter demonstrates the fruit of repentance. Specifically, he firmly states that Biola University will make sure that no student graduates without fully understanding the rationale behind the sanctity of human life, which is one of Biola’s theological distinctives. Their commitment will begin this fall, by training student and faculty leaders in the reasoning behind the use of graphic images. In September, The Chimes – Biola’s student newspaper – and other communication venues will publish President Corey’s position. This academic year Biola will hold a pro-life chapel during which graphic abortion photos will be used as such images have historically been used: to turn an abstract idea into an unmistakable reality, and to motivate advocacy and change. By the end of the fall, Biola will be posting an updated policy in support of the ethical and effective use of graphic images on campus. And until this policy is drafted, President Corey has committed the university to find effective and appropriate locations for students to display such images.

But the commitment does not stop there. President Corey is charging the university to make changes in curriculum and measurable outcomes to ensure that Biola meets its stated goals regarding the education and training of students to uphold, in word and deed, the sanctity of human life.

We would like to see Biola, and other like-minded universities, take a further step to integrate an inter-disciplinary minor in Applied Bioethics to further equip and professionalize the next generation of pro-life advocates and ministry partners. Such a move takes time, but we are willing to work with Biola – or any interested Christian university – to create and implement such a minor. In fact, we already have a curriculum outlined.

Because of these extraordinary and unprecedented steps, we believe Biola deserves the whole-hearted support of the pro-life community. Few Christian universities take their Biblical convictions concerning life as seriously as does Biola. It is our fervent hope that these collective actions of confession and repentance will prove to anyone with doubts that Biola is a champion for Life. We ask for prayer and for reconciliation between Biola and the wider pro-life community. Our prayer is that God would empower us with a spirit of grace as we seek to work together toward our true task: to save the lives of unborn children created in the image of the God we serve.

Together with you in Christ,

John Ensor, M.Div., President, PassionLife Ministries
jensor@passionlife.org

Scott Klusendorf, M.A., President, Life Training Institute
719-264-7861, sklusendorf@numail.org

Marc T. Newman, Ph.D., President, Speaker for Life
760-807-4499, marc@speakerforlife.com

Media requests can be made by contacting any of us at our respective organizations.

The Westley Defense (Part 1): Nice Guys with Mad Sword Skills Get Listened To [Jay Watts]

Originally posted at my personal blog Vassal of Grace

My family recently watched The Princess Bride as my daughter's welcome home movie after a week a way at Camp Kudzu, a camp for kids with Type 1 diabetes. Her choice thrilled my wife and I, as I suspect it would most parents our age. My kids repeated the lines over and over before, during, and after, and repeatedly hearing the lines I was struck with an aspect of the movie I hadn't previously appreciated. Westley, Buttercup's true love and the hero of the film, is the very model of how we should engage people with whom we have serious disagreements.

Greg Koukl wrote the book on how to have a productive conversation. Literally, it is called Tactics and if you don't own it, you should. Greg gives a tactical approach to arguments through a series of questions while highlighting common mistakes in how we frame our positions. With the wealth of information in this book, one line impacted me more than any other. Early in the second chapter Greg gives a rule of his: "If anyone in the discussion gets angry, you lose." (Underlining added)

He goes on to write:

"When you get angry, you look belligerent. You raise your voice, you scowl. You may even begin to break into the conversation before the person is finished. Not only is this bad manners, but it begins to look like your ideas are not as good as you thought they were... You begin to replace persuasion with power...

What if you are able to keep your cool, but the person you're trying to persuade isn't? You lose in that case, too. People who are angry get defensive, and defensive people are not in a very good position to think about whether or not your ideas are good ones."

Let me reiterate what Greg says in the book; a knowledge base is essential to arguing well. That said, the longer I do this work the more convinced I become of the importance of respectful dialogue. As I present, I emphasize that what most led to my change in views on both God and abortion was good arguments from good arguers. Both components were vital and neither took precedence over the other.

That rubs some people the wrong way. A philosophy major at one university I was visiting told me, “That is all well and good, but I like to mix it up. I enjoy the heat of battle.”

I gently responded, “If your goal is to enjoy the heat of the exchange and bludgeon others with arguments in order to score rhetorical points then your approach is fine. If you hope to convince someone that they are wrong it is almost guaranteed to fail. By allowing the emotion and challenge of the argument to move front and center, you make the discussion about you and not the ideas in play. Now the person isn't even hearing your ideas because they don't like you, and there is no way that they are going to listen.”

A representative of a school I will soon be visiting called me to ask about my style. He apologized for the necessity of the conversation but as he explained, “the last pro-life speaker we allowed into our school was mean, didn't interact with the students but merely dismissed them as obviously wrong, and did a lot of damage to the pro-life views of our students.”

It looks like I am going to get the chance to work with that school to help them get past the last guy, but listen to what he said. The man's attitude toward the students and the discussion did damage. The speaker didn't offer bad arguments as near as I can tell, he just argued poorly.

I don't like bad arguers. Michael Ruse participated in a debate with a Christian apologist that shall remain unnamed. An atheist friend of mine attended the event with me. Ruse was warm and engaging. He did not shy away from his disagreements with Christianity or the apologist he shared the stage with, but he cloaked his disagreement with cordiality and respect. I watched him interact with the lay audience. Even when some well intentioned soul talked to Ruse like he was stupid or engaged him a little too enthusiastically, he politely excused himself and moved on without incident. All I know about that man as a person is what I saw that day. He may be a scoundrel every other day of his life, but I remember him as a charming guy and I enjoy reading his works more as a result.

The Christian apologist, on the other hand, was rude during Q & A, made repeated references to his credentials, and bizarrely threatened to “come after” one of the panelists. We all have bad days, but this behavior was so off putting that, whatever the strengths of his arguments may have been, my atheist friend completely dismissed him. Thank God for the charming and articulate panelists that genuinely impressed my friend. I extend that man grace in recognition that I have no idea what was going on with him, but I must admit that I have had little interest in his work since then in spite of his obvious intelligence. I say that knowing full well that there are people out there who feel the same about me after I mishandled conflicts in the past.

There is little to add to the brilliance of Greg Koukl's Tactics, but in light of how crucial I believe this aspect is to our successful engagement, I am going to do a series of posts on arguing well. I want to take Greg's rule from Chapter 2 and tease it out with illustrations in what I will call the Westley Defense.

I'm writing this for me as much as anyone else. In Romans 12:17-18 Paul tells us, “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” In my life I have been quarrelsome, aggressive, and hateful. Being respectful and courteous is a discipline I adopted because it both makes me more the man I ought to be and because it aids in accomplishing the goal of winning people rather than arguments. It does not come natural to me. I work on it.

In The Princess Bride, Westley is confronted with sword fights, hand to hand combat with a giant, a battle of wits to the death with a rude Sicilian, and the efforts of an evil prince to separate him from his true love. Though not lacking in strength or will, almost every engagement is peppered with wit and warmth. Even in his more terse and threatening exchanges with Prince Humperdink, his aggression is constrained by the necessity of the situation. It offers a good picture to evaluate our own exchanges in the impossibly charming light of Westley the stable boy turned Dread Pirate Roberts.

Part 2 will be focused on coming out of the starting gates well or in Westley talk, “Look I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't as easy as it looks, so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't distract me.”

Pro-Life Presentation for Men Based on the Movie '42'

Outline--Men and Abortion: From Backbencher to Game Changer

I. Intro: Branch Rickey—A courageous game changer who didn’t sit out the moral issue of his day.

II. Theme: Being a game-changer when everyone else sits out

III. Topic is significant, because many guys sit out the key moral issue of our day--abortion--instead of courageously stepping up like Branch Rickey did.

Example: Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (paraphrase)—“We need a truce on the moral issues. Focus on economy instead.” Well, we can’t make peace with evil! Surrender is not an option. Men must engage! Indeed, it’s in our nature to protect, defend, and fight. But when it comes to the greatest moral issue of our day, many guys don’t engage. They sit the game out. Why?

IV. Thesis: Men aren’t game-changers on abortion for three key reasons:

A. Reason #1: They play by the wrong rules--namely, those dictated by a culture steeped in relativism that confuses preference claims with moral ones.  

1. Objection: “It’s okay to be personally opposed to abortion, but you shouldn’t force your views on others who disagree.” Try this: “I’m personally opposed to slavery, but if you want to own a slave, I won’t force my views on you.” Indeed, why be opposed to abortion at all if it doesn’t unjustly take the life of an innocent human being? Christian men, as leaders, have a duty to clarify moral truths. When they don't lives are lost. 

2. Use this 55-second clip to restore meaning to word abortion for those who think it’s a preference issue. Briefly preview the gospel as solution for those struggling with post-abortion guilt—a topic you will cover in more detail w/ reason #3 below. You can download the video clip here.

B. Reason #2: They lack confidence because they lack training 

1. The abortion controversy, like that of racial equality, comes down to this: Does each and every human being have equal value or do only some have it in virtue of some accidental characteristic like skin color or level of development? 

2. The Biblical case is clear: All humans have value because they bear the image of their Maker (Genesis. 1, James 3). Because humans bear God’s image, the shedding of innocent blood is strictly forbidden (Ex. 23:7, Prov. 6:16-19, Mt. 5:21). How do we confidently communicate a case for human equality that includes the unborn to those who reject Biblical authority? 

3. We do it with science and philosophy: According the science of embryology, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. You didn't come from an embryo; you once were an embryo. Philosophically, there is no essential difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today that justifies killing you at that earlier stage of development. Difference of size, level of development, location, and dependency are not good reasons for saying you could be killed then but not now.

4. Why should we learn this apologetics stuff instead of just preaching the gospel?  Because Scripture commands us to be prepared to give an answer for the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15).

C. Reason #3: They have ghosts in their lockers (that is, they’ve participated in aborting an unborn human being). 

1. Men who’ve participated in abortion don’t need an excuse. They need forgiveness—and Jesus offers it. 

2. Branch Rickey had a ghost—He regretted not speaking up in the past when he witnessed the unfair treatment of Blacks. But he didn’t let that ghost stop him from doing the right thing with Jackie Robinson.   

3. Key question: When you meet God and He asks if you showed up to play, will your answer be sufficient?

Close by challenging them to take home the 5-Minute Pro-lifer article. Tell them the 55-second abortion clip that you showed can be found at prolifetraining.com

(Update: Special thanks to LTI speaker James Jenkins, who helped me brainstorm the idea for this talk and who delivered it to the men at his church earlier today.)

U.C. Berkeley Debate, Part 2: “On Potts and Spitfires” [SK]

I was asked to repost this from my Facebook page....

Setting--April 8, UC Berkeley: I was debating Malcom Potts, the first International Medical Director for Planned Parenthood (who played a huge role in legalizing abortion in the UK) in front of 600 of his own students, nearly all of whom share his worldview. I like these hostile settings, as I have nothing to lose. It’s at these moments, that I channel my inner Spitfire. For you history buffs, the Spitfire was the plane that saved the West in 1940. England stood alone against Hitler, who was positioned to invade. But first he needed to destroy British air power. Though alone and vastly outnumbered, British Spitfire pilots took to the skies and shot down three invading aircraft for every one of their own that was lost. If you visit my home office, you will see Spitfire pictures prominently displayed along with a gorgeous picture of London. In short, if you are a pro-lifer, you are a Spitfire pilot. You fight no matter the odds.

My goal in these debates is not to convert everyone—that won’t happen—but give my critics something to think about. Maybe when they're 40 they'll change their minds based on something I said.

Both parties agreed to the format in early January. Each speaker would get 22 minutes for an opening, 12- minutes for rebuttal speeches, and 7-minutes for closing statements. The remaining time would be for audience Q&A. Last week, Potts twice tried to change the format. First, he asked that both speakers refrain from using visual aids—an obvious attempt to censor me using a short (55 second) DVD clip depicting abortion. I refused. I would never be so presumptuous as to suggest censoring my opponent’s remarks and I demand the same courtesy from him. Potts backed down. Second, he asked to shorten the formal speeches from 20-minute openings to 15-minute openings, with rebuttal speeches trimmed to 8 minutes and closing statements trimmed to 5 minutes. I rejected that specific proposal, but agreed to 18-minute openings, 10-minute rebuttals, and five minutes for closings. (Believing debates with Potts at Berkeley might become twice-yearly events, I decided to show a little flexibility.)

What Potts really wanted—and I knew this going in—was a non-debate. That is, instead of opening statements and rebuttals, he wanted to mostly skip those things and go right to Q&A from the audience. After all, so his argument went, those listening care more about their own questions than they do what the speakers have to say.

I didn’t fall for that, and neither should any of you that engage public debate. There were reasons Potts wanted to do it that way.

First, I knew from our previous debate that Potts had no formal case, only a series of disconnected assertions. Meanwhile, I had a formal case and he knew it. This was hugely problematic for him. If I lay out a well-reasoned argument for my position and he replies with a series of random assertions and emotional appeals, he’s going to run out of intellectual steam very early in the debate. Second, Potts knows it’s much easier to zing me with one-liners and personal attacks when he doesn’t have to answer my formal case. Third, Potts knows that if I only get two-minutes to answer him in a Q&A format, he can get away with asserting all kinds of things I’ll never get time to refute. The soundbite will carry the day! Thus, I insisted on having time to make my case and refute his.

Sure enough, Potts opened the debate by complaining—about me! “I wanted to have a discussion about this topic, but Scott insisted on turning this into a boxing match.” He spent much of his time throughout the exchange emphatically stating how outraged he was by my arguments—all the while failing to refute even one of them! This is very typical. The same exact thing happened with my debate with Kathryn Kholbert at Lehigh University in 2007. As Prager points out, when the Left doesn’t have arguments, it gets offended. Theater replaces discussion. Potts even stooped so low as to claim I want women to die from illegal abortion to deter women from seeking them! (He partially quoted—completely out of context and with words removed—a passage from my 1999 book “Pro-Lie 101.”) That’s the best he could do. By the Q&A, he was pacing the stage, nearly screaming, interrupting me at every turn. The debate moderators—both students of his—privately apologized to me for his behavior.

I did not respond with similar behavior. I challenged his ideas, but I did not call him names. Two Christian girls from Korea came up during the break and said, "Are you a Christian?" When I said yes, they replied: "We thought so. We’re so glad you are speaking because we're all alone here. We’re praying for you!” They returned after the debate, obviously thrilled I was able to make my case on hostile turf. Sure, some of Potts students cheered for him. That happens when you challenge the secular orthodoxy of the university culture.

In short, I’m glad to be a Spirtfire. Yes, I’m outnumbered and outgunned, but I don’t fly alone. Once airborne, I notice others with courage to enjoin the fight. First, there’s my LTI team—we aren’t afraid to go where the action is—Catholic and Protestant High Schools, Secular Universities, and Bible Colleges. Then, to my right, are Catholic young guns like Trent Horn, RJ McVeigh, and Stephanie Gray. To my left are young evangelicals like Josh Brahm, Daniel Rodger, and Clinton Wilcox. Leading the way, I see air-command represented by Frank Beckwith, Pat Lee, and J.P. Moreland—to name a few.

My fellow pro-lifers, you’re Spitfire pilots. So are those Korean girls at U.C. Berkeley. Put your flight jacket on. We’ve got a spot for you above the clouds.