Book Thoughts: Tactics – Think Clearly. Ask Wisely

The book “Tactics” by Greg Koukl is a book recommended by many Christian apologists and has been very influential for many of them. In April 2025 I ordered the book and read it – and here are things I took away from it, my thoughts on the book, and brief summaries of some chapters.

📘 The Book in Two Sentences

Navigate conversations above all with good questions.

Navigate conversations above all with good questions.

Find the flaws in your neighbor’s thinking and show them to him in love.

Find the flaws in your neighbor’s thinking and show them to him in love.

💭 My Impression

For me, this book is partly the answer to a longer search – namely for trained thinking.
I have often noticed with people that something in their thinking is off, but I didn’t know exactly what it was – and then the opportunity to point it out was sometimes already gone.

This book is an excellent resource for that, as an entire section of the book deals with exactly this: How we find flaws in the thinking or reasoning of others.
This is a distinctive feature of the book, because there are many books about the arguments with which we can defend the faith – but not so many about the strategy behind it.

👥 Who Should Read It

This is a book I would recommend to every Christian, since we ultimately all want to be witnesses of our Lord.
The tactics in this book can be applied by anyone – whether a student at school, a university student, or a Christian in the workplace.

It will be especially useful, of course, for those who have such conversations very regularly, e.g. in evangelism.
Nevertheless, this book is a must-read for every Christian.

🙌 How the Book Has Helped Me

Especially the question asking the other person for reasons behind their view is something I have applied a lot so far.
It seems quite obvious, but it is remarkable how many people cannot give reasons for their religious claims.
Starting a conversation this way can be very helpful with some people.

🧠 Summary from the Book

The Three Tactical Questions

Question 1: What do you mean by that?

The goal of this first question is to create clarity.
It forces our counterpart to state precisely what they mean and to define their terms. Koukl emphasizes:

“Many objections thrive on the confused thinking that comes from a lack of clarity. Your first question often removes this obstacle by forcing the person to be precise.”

Advantages of this question:

We do not misunderstand the other person.

We do not misunderstand the other person.

We represent the other person accurately.

We represent the other person accurately.

The other person may discover for themselves that their statements are unclear or contradictory – otherwise they run the risk of misunderstanding themselves.

The other person may discover for themselves that their statements are unclear or contradictory – otherwise they run the risk of misunderstanding themselves.

This creates a genuine basis for conversation.
Otherwise one risks talking past each other.

Question 2: How did you arrive at that conclusion?

As Christians, we often forget that we are not the only ones who bear a burden of proof.Whoever makes a claim must also justify it.

With this question we bring our counterpart to lay out their thought process.
People often realize in the process that their claims are not as well grounded as they initially thought.

It also keeps us from constantly being pushed onto the defensive – because it is not always our task to immediately refute every foreign claim.

Question 3: Have you considered that …?

The third question is the first one that requires a form of knowledge.
With it one tries to point out to the other in a friendly manner certain flaws or contradictions in their thinking.

For this we need to:

listen well

listen well

notice the flaws in the other person’s thinking

notice the flaws in the other person’s thinking

This third question takes time to master.
One must engage with things, have conversations, and learn from them. Nobody will be perfect at it from the start.

❌ Flaws in Thinking

🧨 Intellectual Suicide

When a statement contradicts itself or has an internal contradiction, it commits intellectual suicide, as the author calls it.
This happens, for example, when a statement includes itself, e.g.:

“All German sentences are false.”

The statement would also apply to itself – and is therefore self-destructive.

🔇 Practical Suicide

Practical intellectual suicide occurs when a statement at first appears to contain no internal contradictions, but is necessarily refuted by practice.

Example:

“I never state any of my convictions out loud.”

This statement initially contains no contradiction, but:
One cannot utter it without simultaneously contradicting it.

Another example:

“Imposing your morality on others is wrong.”

Here too: this statement cannot be made without simultaneously refuting it.

⚔️ Sibling Rivalry

When two counter-arguments are made that cannot both work at the same time, the author calls this sibling rivalry.

Example:

When someone on the one hand espouses moral relativism,
but on the other hand complains about the evil in the world that God permits –
they commit this error.

🧒 Intellectual Infanticide

Sometimes people make arguments that depend on certain facts that they simultaneously deny.
Koukl calls this infanticide (intellectually speaking).

Example:

“Vocal cords do not exist.”

This statement initially contains no obvious contradiction. But: the statement depends on vocal cords existing in order for it to be made at all. The statement thus pulls the rug out from under itself.

⚠️ Controversial Views

Let us finally turn to a controversial perspective that one should be aware of when reading the book, namely Calvinism.
This is most evident in Chapter Two – otherwise it plays, in my experience, no role in the book.

✅ Conclusion

In summary, I can say that I genuinely recommend this book to everyone – it is absolutely worth its price.

It shows us:

the importance of questions for our conversations

the importance of questions for our conversations

which questions we should use

which questions we should use

how to identify logical errors in our neighbor’s thinking

how to identify logical errors in our neighbor’s thinking

and how to point them out in love – with the goal that they may still recognize the same

and how to point them out in love – with the goal that they may still recognize the same