{"id":37392,"date":"2024-04-11T11:38:37","date_gmt":"2024-04-11T18:38:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/?p=37392"},"modified":"2024-04-11T13:08:41","modified_gmt":"2024-04-11T20:08:41","slug":"a-lesson-from-columbo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/a-lesson-from-columbo\/","title":{"rendered":"A Lesson From Columbo"},"content":{"rendered":"

Do you remember Lieutenant Columbo? He was a police detective in a show starting in the early 70s that ran for over 30 years. I loved watching the show as a kid and still enjoy it today. \"\"<\/a>Lieutenant Columbo\u2019s disheveled appearance and bumbling demeanor always gave the impression that he had no idea what was happening. He was overly polite and chomped on the same short cigar daily. However, he was the best detective. My favorite part of the show is the final climactic scene when he reveals the person is guilty, which he does by scratching his head and asking questions, getting them to demonstrate their guilt. In his pursuit of the truth, he was very unassuming and always curious. He seldom asserted opinion or proposition but stuck to his primary tool: questions. How do we pursue truth? When confident of the truth, how do we help others see it? It is these questions, and more, that Matthew Petrusek addresses in his book, \u201cEvangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture.\u201d[1] Petrusek breaks the book into two parts. In Part 1 he seeks to lay out a methodology for employing Catholic social thought to debate secular ideologies whille in Part 1 he turns to analyzing diverse secular ideologies, showing how Catholic social thought provides a better alternative to each. In this post, I will focus my attention on Part 1 and narrow in on two aspects of his framework. I will also offer one approach that has helped me navigate similar waters through the years.<\/p>\n

Contradict or Coexist<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Part 1, Petrusek begins by addressing the assertion that religious faith is absent of reason, which is well documented by popular atheists like Sam Harris[2] and Richard Dawkins[3]. He then introduces us to the ideas of Bishop Robert Barron, whose work he suggests provides a theoretical framework for engaging in moral, philosophical, and religious argumentation.[4] In response to the assertion that faith is unreasonable or “infrarational,”\u00a0 Barron offers the idea that authentic faith is \u201csuprarational.\u201d As he explains, \u201cThe suprarational\u2026 is what lies beyond reason but never contradicts reason. It is indeed a type of knowing, but one that surpasses the ordinary powers of observation, experimentation, hypothesis formation, or rational reflection.\u201d[5] What I find interesting is the inference that authentic faith is outside of reason or absent of it. Both Petrusek and Barron seem to suggest that authentic faith involves believing in propositions that are outside the realm of reason. What would this mean for the early Apostles and disciples of Jesus who had physical interaction with the risen Jesus? I appreciate what Christian philosopher and apologist J.P. Moreland says concerning this:<\/p>\n

\u201cBiblically, faith is a power or skill to act in accordance with the nature of the kingdom of God, a trust in what we have reason to believe is true. Understood in this way, we see that faith is built on reason. We should have good reasons for thinking that Christianity is true before we dedicate ourselves completely to it.\u201d[6]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Moreland\u2019s statement aligns with what the Apostle Peter said, \u201cBut in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.\u201d[7] Here, Peter indicates that we can articulate the reason for our faith. However, not everyone will find our reason reasonable. Petrusek seeks to lay out a logical framework for making propositions, but there is a difference between presenting an argument and being in an argument. While the rules of formal argumentation may be clear, people don\u2019t typically play by those rules.<\/p>\n

A Dash of Facts with Heaps of Opinions, Feelings, and Stories<\/b><\/p>\n

Formal arguments work in a vacuum; people tend not to.\u00a0 Unfortunately, we humans in the modern moment are less affected by well-reasoned arguments and more influenced by what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor describes as the \u201cSocial Imaginary.\u201d In his book \u201cA Secular Age\u201d, he explains this concept:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI speak of \u2018imaginary\u2019 (i) because I\u2019m talking about the way ordinary people \u2018imagine\u2019 their social surroundings, and this is often not expressed in theoretical terms, it is carried in images, stories, legends, etc.\u00a0 But is is also the case that (ii) theory is often the possession of a small minority, whereas what is interesting in the social imaginary is that it is shared by large groups of people, if not the whole society.\u00a0 Which leads to a third difference: (iii) the social imaginary is the common understanding which makes possible common practices and a widely shared sense of legitimacy.\u201d[8]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As Taylor describes it, the social imaginary is a complex web of beliefs, expectations, and assumptions that members of a community share.\u00a0 The social imaginary is not a well-defined, clearly articulated set of life principles; rather it is the lifestyle of individuals, all shaped by the same songs, stories, and images that help them make sense of the world and behave within it.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Still, Petrusek contends it doesn\u2019t all come down to opinion and that people can determine truth on the intellectual merits of arguments themselves.[9]\u00a0 Surprisingly, I agree because I think barriers to truth, especially the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, can be divided into three primary categories: Intellectual, emotional, and willful.\u00a0 What Petrusek\u2019s work seeks to do is help people navigate the intellectual barriers; however, that is only one aspect.\u00a0 We see in the world and in our own hearts a combination of all three barriers present.\u00a0 A wise and winsome approach requires discernment, humility, and patience.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A Si\"\"<\/a>mple Tactic<\/b><\/p>\n

So, how do we engage people with truth?\u00a0 We can draw on the example of Lt. Columbo.\u00a0 This was actually introduced to me in college while I was studying philosophy.\u00a0 This Columbo method was later formalized and more thoroughly explained in a book by Greg Koukl called \u201cTactics.\u201d[10]<\/span>\u00a0 The technique is straightforward: be curious<\/span> and ask intentional questions.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

Questions like:<\/span><\/p>\n