The Columbo Tactic, as described in chapters 3-5 of the above titled book, is a conversational method of engaging non-Christians in apologetic dialogue.  It is titled after the 70s television sleuth and homicide detective, Lt. Frank Columbo.  The tactic makes use of the television character’s signature style of investigation: asking questions, while appearing quite incapable of seriously challenging his murder suspect. Koukl plays on this theme of asking questions to make statements.

Koukl writes, “Never make a statement…when a question will get the job done.” Koukl believes that asking questions opens the skeptic’s mind and forces him to think through and defend his own views.  It has the side benefit of keeping the apologist from “twisting the words” of his opponent.  “The key to The Columbo Tactic is to go on the offensive in an inoffensive way by using carefully selected questions to productively advance the conversation.”  This keeps the apologist in the driver’s seat, while allowing him to remain calm and pleasant.  Questions are neutral and not preachy.  If the apologist is merely asking questions, then he is never in a position of defending his own views.

Questions can be used to expose the weaknesses of the skeptic’s views, and allow the apologist to “gather information, reverse the burden of proof, and lead the conversation” without being “abrupt, rude, or pushy.” Fact gathering is done with the question, “What do you mean by that?”  The point is to learn what the skeptic believes so that you “don’t misunderstand him or misrepresent him.”  Repeat the skeptic’s view back to him for clarification.  Reversing the burden of proof is done by asking the question, “How did you come to that conclusion?”  The point is to cause the skeptic to defend his view or unbelief, whichever may be the case.  Asking further questions forces the skeptic to offer the evidence and reasons for his view or unbelief.  Leading the conversation involves asking questions that uncover weaknesses, inconsistencies, and/or intellectual dishonesty in the skeptic’s views and beliefs.  Koukl points out that “Once you’ve learned to guide a conversation, you can control it.”

In my view, Koukl’s tactic is quite similar to the method of persuasion used by defense attorneys in courts of law.  In fact, the word apologist comes from the Latin word for defense.  Defense attorneys bear the responsibility of influencing and convincing judges and juries of their respective points of view, but they are not allowed to make personal assertions or statements of fact, or comment on the issues in a trial as it proceeds.  Rather they must ask questions of the witnesses and let the judge and jury decide upon the plausibility of the answers, rule on the evidence, and determine the facts of the case. The Columbo Tactic turns the skeptic into the prosecutor (the one making false assertions about the guilt of the defendant), the witnesses (the one answering the questions and giving the opinions) and the judge and jury (the one being persuaded by the evidence and the arguments).  This is a brilliant move.  Once all the evidence and testimony are in, the defense attorney also makes the final arguments, summarizes the evidence and testimony, and applies it to the defense’s view of the case.  In The Columbo Tactic, Koukl favors following a similar course.  The apologist assumes the role of the defense attorney and reviews the facts, evidence, and theories of the defense’s position, and then presents concluding remarks that connect all the dots and make the defense’s case.  Since the evidence and testimony were all provided by the skeptic in contradiction to his own prosecutorial allegations, then the skeptic, if intellectually honest, must rule in favor of the apologist’s defense of the case against Christianity.