Only Two Questions?

Alan Shlemon has been one of my closest friends since the late 1990s, but after all these years, his answer surprised me. Late last year, our outreach team was about to sit down to dinner in his home, and I asked a version of this question: “What’s the minimum amount of training you think someone needs in order to have a successful conversation on a difficult topic?”

View fullsize

Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason (right) interacts with a student at JFA’s “Stop and Think” outreach at UCLA in May 2016. Although we don’t know everything Alan was covering in this conversation, we do know for certain he was employing the two questions what and why and modeling the approach we discuss in this post.

Alan is a speaker at Stand to Reason (www.str.org), and like the trainers at Justice For All (JFA), he regularly equips Christians to talk about the most thorny and complicated topics in the culture. I expected Alan to say something like “four or five hours” since just one topic can bring up a myriad of facts, questions, and arguments, let alone all of the related topics people inevitably also raise.

Instead, Alan said he really only needed just a few minutes to teach people to use the Columbo Tactic. He was referring to asking questions that gather information and request reasons. (STR’s Greg Koukl named this tactic after the beloved, bumbling 1970’s detective who solved his crimes by asking questions.) That was it? All people need is to learn to ask a couple of questions?

I quickly realized, though, that Alan was simply reminding me of what I and other JFA trainers have been teaching for years: “Learn to ask two questions, and you can make an impact in any conversation on any topic with anyone anytime anywhere.” What two questions? The same ones to which Alan was referring: what and why. These questions help us gather information (What do you believe? What did you mean by that?) and ask people to give reasons for the claims they make (Why do you believe that? How did you come to that conclusion?). These two questions also “get us out of the hot seat and into the driver’s seat of the conversation,” as Greg Koukl has often said.

Now, I don’t mean you can ask these questions in any way and expect them to create productive dialogue. Obviously, we need to follow these questions up with “listening to understand.” We’ve also found that accompanying these questions with a desire to find common ground (“I agree… I think you’re making a good point”) and an attitude of humility (“I know I’m mistaken about some things, and you might have insight that will shed light on which of my beliefs are false”) helps the two questions make their impact. In this way you can also create a context in which the person is more likely to be open to a third type of question that challenges his or her beliefs.

So, if you’re afraid to engage friends or family in conversation about difficult topics, I suggest you focus on developing your ability to ask these two questions, what and why. How? Start practicing. What’s great about these questions is that you don’t have to do the heavy lifting. You only have to figure out what words need to be clarified and what parts of the person’s view are unclear (ask some question that begins with “what did you mean…?”). Then once you have the person’s view clarified, you can think of her view like the roof of a house. What does a roof need in order to be a roof? Walls. So you then ask the person to build walls that support her roof (ask some question that begins with “why do you believe…?” or “how did you come to this conclusion?”).

You can even practice this approach and these questions on topics that don’t have to do with controversial issues; I’m referring to the conversations you have with the people closest to you that become tense and frequently devolve into hurt feelings. Instead of assuming you know what your spouse or child or friend meant, ask “what did you mean when you said…?” Instead of assuming you know how she would support her view, ask “what reasons for this view are persuasive to you?”

I’m confident you’ll find that you can create productive conversations you never thought possible. In fact, people frequently report to our team during our campus events things like, “This was the best conversation I’ve ever had.” Sure, members of the JFA team have a lot of experience, and I consider them experts. But even someone with no experience, a conversation beginner, can experience the same extraordinary results. You can start today to develop these skills. Just focus on asking these two questions!

Thank you for partnering with us as we help pro-life advocates and Christians get started changing hearts and minds with simple tools like these.

Note: This letter is the third in a series of letters on conversation skills we teach volunteers that help them get started having conversations and encourage them to stay active. See the previous letters in the series:

• “Be a Playmaker” (jfaweb.org/feb-2023)

• “Thinking about the Unborn for the First Time” (jfaweb.org/may-2023)

See Other Letters in this Series

Be Relational...then Be Intellectual

In my May letter, I shared the story of my conversation with Stacey at Palomar College. It began with her saying abortion should be legal through all nine months of pregnancy because of bodily rights, and it ended with her saying, “I’ve never thought about whether the fetus is a person before. I’ll have to think about that.” This conversation illustrates a simple approach: Be relational, then be intellectual. What began as a principle we applied to the question of rape is now a principle we apply to every question related to pregnancy and abortion. You can see another great model of the basics of this approach in last month’s Impact Report by Kristina Massa entitled, “Answering the Hard Cases.”

I want to share a bit of the history of how this concept became so central to our teaching at JFA. A good starting point is a scene seven minutes into the documentary Unborn in the USA (2007), which was filmed about 19 years ago at Focus on the Family Institute (photo below). After watching that scene, a writer from Nerve Magazine (an edgy online magazine that is not recommended reading) said,

The guy is making perfect sense…He's an articulate, intelligent, calm presence. Suddenly, a chill creeps up your spine: I hope there are people on the pro-choice side who are equally perceptive and balanced.

I was the featured speaker in that scene, and here’s essentially what I was teaching: When talking about the topic of rape, we need to show sympathy for the rape victim and show emotional sensitivity to the heaviness of the topic of rape and the horror of that evil act. We need to do these things first, before making intellectual arguments. I regularly tell audiences that part of my job is to help them recover their common sense as a guide for how to respond to difficult questions like the question of abortion in the case of rape. We should be the strongest advocates for women whose basic rights have been trampled. In fact, the same concern for human rights that animates us to stand up for unborn children also animates us to stand up for all women everywhere and for their very real bodily right to be free from rape.

Focus on the Family Institute (Sept. 2004): During interactive role-play activities, Steve sometimes stood on a chair to make a point.

Being relational first and then giving intellectually credible answers to hard questions is practically wise: it works. It’s the best way to help people be open to our perspective. There’s a more fundamental reason to use this approach, though: it’s the right thing to do. Because all human beings have intrinsic value, we should stand up for them and show concern for them.

At first, we emphasized “being relational and then being intellectual” mostly on the topic of rape. Some of our trainers, notably Tammy Cook, have argued for years, though, that this approach is valuable on a much broader spectrum of questions related to pregnancy and abortion. In 2018 I put some of this approach into words in a series called “It’s Her Body.” I made the case that the relational concerns that are on the minds of people discussing the question of rape are just as present when a woman’s body is mentioned. I pointed out that many pro-choice advocates perceive or feel our advocacy against abortion to be a violation of a woman's body. If they hear our advocacy this way, the fear and horror they feel for other violations of a woman’s body will obstruct hearing our case for the unborn’s value.

To meet this challenge, I claimed that for any bodily rights argument, we should also use the approach of “be relational and then be intellectual.” First, point out that women have real bodily rights, generally speaking, and those rights have been trampled throughout history up to the present day in horrific acts including rape, domestic violence, and slavery. Then clarify how far those bodily rights extend and how it changes things when we consider that since those bodily rights are fundamental, they must have begun when the human being began, at fertilization. If the unborn also has bodily rights, their bodily rights should be respected as well. Be relational, then be intellectual.

The more we as a community have reflected on these things, we’ve realized that this is a good practice to follow with every pro-choice argument. Show sensitivity to the emotional heaviness caused by the suffering in these circumstances, then continue in that relational sensitivity as you offer intellectual clarifications.

Here’s an example: If someone says, “some women are too poor,” I begin with relational and emotional sensitivity: “That’s a good point. Some women are very poor, and I can’t fully understand what it’s like to be poor and pregnant. I’m glad you’ve brought this up, and I don’t have a simple answer.” When it seems helpful, I can then clarify that because poverty isn’t a good justification for killing a toddler whose mom is poor, this justification for abortion only works if something else is also true, that the unborn is not a human being. This clarifies that we all need to focus on this central question. We agree poverty is incredibly difficult, and we agree we need to care for poor women. What constitutes good “care” will depend on our answer to the question, “How many people are in the room?” If there’s only one person present when a woman is pregnant, and abortion kills no one, then abortion should be legal. But if abortion kills a real human being, it would be odd to offer abortion as a solution to poverty. Our approach is the same for most other justifications for abortion, including “the child will suffer,” “a woman’s life will be overturned by caring for a child,” and “the world is overpopulated such that people can’t get enough to eat.” We show concern for the suffering involved (“be relational”) and then clarify the truth that these situations don’t justify killing human beings, including the unborn (be intellectual).

Oct. 2024 Update: Note that this letter expands on the second of a series of three letters Steve wrote from February 2023 until March 2024 - letters focused on conversations skills we teach volunteers that help them get started having conversations and encourage them to stay active. Here are links to the series, including this letter, so you can see how it fits in the flow of thought:

1. “Be a Playmaker” (Feb. 2023) on the importance of seeing your advocacy in

2. “Thinking about the Unborn Child for the First Time” (May 2023) on being relational then intellectual

   • “Be Relational…then Be Intellectual” (this letter, Sept. 2023) on how this approach applies to every topic in every conversation

3. “Only Two Questions?” (March 2024) on the two clarification questions that can help you make an impact in any conversation.

Thinking about the Unborn Child for the First Time

Stacey walked up to our outreach signs looking curious. We were standing on a busy walkway at Palomar College (CA) in December. I asked a few questions about her thoughts on abortion, and she clarified that she thought abortion should be legal until birth. Here’s my recollection of the rest of the conversation:

Steve: Do you believe abortion should be legal because you believe a woman has a right to her body?

Stacey: Yes. A woman’s right to her body is really important to me.

Steve: I agree that a woman has a right to her body, generally speaking, and I agree that’s really important. Women’s bodily rights have been trampled on and continue to be trampled on throughout the world with practices like slavery, rape, and domestic violence. I think those things are horrific and wrong.

View fullsize

Palomar College Outreach in December 2022: Steve (center, black shirt) and other JFA staff members interact with students.

Stacey: I agree.

Steve: Do you agree with me that a woman’s bodily rights are not simply created or determined by the state? Instead, they’re fundamental. They’re like other human rights. If the state didn’t protect those rights, the state would be wrong.

Stacey: Yes, that’s true.

View fullsize

Pages 4-5 of JFA’s Invitation to Dialogue Brochure.

Steve: I have some pictures over here that might be helpful to our conversation. [I showed her the signs that show pages four and five of the Invitation to Dialogue Brochure.] Look at this young woman pictured here. Can we agree that she has bodily rights that the state should respect?

Stacey: I agree with that.

View fullsize

JFA’s setup at the National Mall on April 26-27 included the signs Steve referred to in his conversation with Stacey.

Steve: Now, what about this toddler? I assume we would agree he shouldn’t be killed. Can we agree he has bodily rights that are fundamental?

Stacey: Yes.

Steve: So the woman and the toddler have the same bodily rights. And those rights are fundamental, so the situation would have to reach a really high bar to justify limiting something so important as a person’s bodily rights. Perhaps the only legitimate way the state could limit those rights is if these people were using their bodies to take away someone else’s bodily rights.

Stacey: That’s a good point.

Steve: Does it make sense to you that if their rights are fundamental, they had them from the moment they began to exist? When did this toddler begin to exist?

Stacey: That makes sense, but I guess I’m not sure. What do you think?

Steve: Well, from fertilization [pointing at image on sign], when the sperm and the egg came together, both ceased to exist, and a new organism came into existence. All that’s been added from then until the toddler stage is food. If we have something as important as fundamental human rights now, I don’t think we could gain those rights by eating. So, I think the woman and the toddler began to exist at fertilization, and that’s also when they gained their fundamental right to their bodies. But that would mean that the embryo has a fundamental right to his body just like the toddler and the woman.

Our conversation continued for ten minutes or so. (Indeed, Stacey contributed much more detailed responses than what my memory has allowed me to include here.) We discussed how the embryo is very different from us (in looks and functions) but is also the same kind of being that we are—a being with the same human nature we have. If this is true, the woman’s fundamental right to her body would not include the right to abortion, because then abortion would be killing a human being with the same bodily rights.

As Stacey got ready to move on from the conversation, she eagerly accepted a copy of the Invitation to Dialogue Brochure that included the same pictures we had been discussing. What she said in parting really surprised me:

Stacey: I never thought about the fetus as a separate person—that it has its own rights we would be taking away. I’ll have to think about that!

At the beginning of this conversation, Stacey sounded completely pro-choice, and frankly, I think I suspected she wouldn’t have much interest in an alternative opinion. She showed the exact opposite throughout our conversation. It’s a lesson I’ve learned again and again: Don’t make assumptions from appearances.

As I found common ground with Stacey repeatedly about bodily rights, showing relational sensitivity to the emotionally heavy topic of what a woman can do with her body, I think she became open to my perspective about the unborn child. That’s the sequence we teach any chance we can: Be relational…then be intellectual. That approach helped Stacey to consider the possibility there was a whole other person involved in the abortion question, and she showed genuine interest in thinking further about that.

---

Note: This letter is the second in a series of letters on conversation skills we teach volunteers that help them get started having conversations and encourage them to stay active. See “Be a Playmaker” (Feb. 2023) for the first in the series. (March 2024 Update: The third letter in the series, “Only Two Questions?” has just been published. Read it here.)

See the Letters in this Series

Be a Playmaker

Banner: Photo by Jeffrey F Lin on Unsplash

I was playing soccer with my kids recently and something happened twice during our game that sticks in my memory. In both instances, I was only about halfway across our front yard soccer field and received a pass in the center. In order to have a better chance of surprising the other team (a worthy aim), I fired the ball towards the goal without trapping the ball first. One touch. Sadly, in both cases my decision to be a hotshot led to missing the goal completely. I gave the other team a goal kick.

We saw the same mistake multiple times in the World Cup a few months ago. A player would take a shot from too far out, or he would try to dribble through five defenders. He acted like he was a one-man show, and his whole team paid for it with a missed opportunity.

Contrast this with a different approach to the game, one in which the player looks to be a “playmaker.” He is satisfied to pass the ball to another player who has a better angle and can move the ball down the field by passing to yet another player who sends it on to another player, and because each player was satisfied to play his part, the ball ends up in the net.

It’s the same in our conversations about abortion. We’re aiming to help the person change his or her mind completely, meaning he or she develops a hatred for elective abortion and a willingness to act to change the hearts and minds of others. But our job in each conversation is to see ourselves as a part of a team, a network of advocates who influence a person in successive opportunities that God provides.

This gives us great comfort just as it gives us our marching orders. If we don’t see the goal reached during our conversation, we are satisfied to give the person something to think about—a pebble in the shoe, as Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason says (see str.org for more).

If our personal, individual purpose in the “game,” then, isn't necessarily to see the end goal accomplished but rather to take the opportunity God gives us and to “move the ball forward” for the person with whom we’re talking, this helps us assess our performance. Did we represent Christ well? Did we use His manner? Were we skillfully maneuvering in conversation in a way that sought to help the person be more likely to change his or her mind as soon as possible?

If I had been more patient in my soccer game with my kids, I would have been satisfied to move the ball around the field more and more as we got closer and closer to the goal. Ironically, it is this approach that would have put the ball in the back of the net more quickly.

This is one of the things we teach volunteers so they don’t get discouraged. We encourage them to keep the goal in view and to be satisfied to play their part. This is more realistic, and it places only the appropriate level of burden on the volunteer. This approach is better for volunteers, and it will also accomplish the goal of making abortion unthinkable more completely for more people. We patiently see ourselves as members of a team, serving under the direction of one Coach, and we are satisfied to ask the right question or present the bit of evidence that seems most helpful in the moment. This gives the person the best opportunity to reconsider his or her perspective, many times completely apart from our watchful eye.

March 2024 Update: This letter is the first in a series of letters on conversation skills we teach volunteers that help them get started having conversations and encourage them to stay active. The second in the series was published in May 2023 (“Thinking about the Unborn Child for the First Time”), and the third in the series was published in March 2024 (“Only Two Questions?”).

See the Other Letters in this Series

---

Recent Presentation at SFLA’s National Pro-Life Summit

What did Kristina Massa share with 2000 people? Watch the presentation at www.youtube.com/picturejusticeforall

---

Recent and Upcoming Events

1/21 Presentation—National Pro-Life Summit—Kristina, Steve

1/21 Presentation—Anglicans for Life Summit—Steve

1/23-25 Outreach—Fullerton College—Jon, Jeremy, Rebekah, Andrea

1/20-22 Deeper Still Retreat—Kaitlyn

1/31 Outreach—Univ. of Texas, Austin—Jon, Jeremy

2/11 Interactive Seminar—Christ Community Church—Kristina, Andrea, Rebekah, Steve

2/12 Presentations—Christ Community Church—Andrea, Rebekah, Steve

2/13-15 Outreach—Univ. of Arizona—Kristina, Paul, Steve, Andrea, Rebekah

2/16-17 Interactive Workshops—San Francisco Area, California—Kristina

2/20-23 Outreach—Univ. of Texas at San Antonio & Texas State Univ.—Jeremy, Kaitlyn, Jon, Mary

3/2 Outreach—Palomar College in Southern California—Rebekah

3/5-8 Seminar and Outreach Events in Albuquerque, New Mexico—Paul, Rebekah, Jeremy, Kristina, Andrea

3/13-15 Love3 Online Interactive Workshops (Register Now!)—JFA Training Team

3/19-22 Seminar and Outreach Events in Wichita, Kansas—Paul, Jon, Kristina, Tammy

3/31-4/5 Seminar and Outreach Events in Colorado—Durango, Colorado Springs, and Alamosa—JFA Training Team

---

Recent Outreach Event at University of Arizona

See pictures of recent events at www.instagram.com/picturejusticeforall