Have you ever been working on a project and felt like you were moving on “automatic”?  You hit a rhythm and find yourself going from one step to the next without even needing to think about it.  Whatever you are doing is so familiar that it has become second nature.  We’ve all been there at some point.  We act, but we don’t necessarily think about our actions.

The remedy, then, if someone’s actions are characterized by thoughtlessness, is to promote thoughtfulness as best we can.

That is the essence of a concept proposed by 20^th century Jewish political philosopher Hannah Arendt.  She called it “the banality of evil”.  Arendt fled Nazi Germany and eventually settled in New York.  Then in 1961 she covered the trial of one of the primary organizers of the Jewish Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann.  Afterwards, she published a report describing her impressions of Eichmann as she watched him throughout the legal proceedings.  We may expect that she would describe a man who resembled so many of our Hollywood villains.  The only thing he would be missing is the handlebar mustache that he could twirl with his fingertips.  But that was not what she saw.  According to Arendt,

Eichmann was not Iago and not Macbeth, and nothing would have been farther from his mind than to determine with Richard III “to prove a villain.” Except for extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all.  And this diligence in itself was in no way criminal; he certainly would never have murdered his superior in order to inherit his post.  He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing. … In principle he knew quite well what it was all about … He was not stupid. It was sheer thoughtlessness – something by no means identical with stupidity – that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that period. And if this is “banal” and even funny, if with the best will in the world one cannot extract any diabolical or demonic profundity from Eichmann, that is still far from calling it commonplace.^[1]

To put it simply, Eichmann’s attitude was no different than anyone else who was just doing his job.  Of course, we can all recognize that his job involved perpetuating some of the evilest acts in history, but he simply never thought about it.  He no more thought about the details of what he was doing than a baker deeply ponders his actions while baking 12 dozen rolls to get ready for the morning rush.  He just hits that groove and goes through all the necessary motions.  In Arendt’s words, the evil that Eichmann committed had become, to him, banal.  It wasn’t that he thought through what he was doing, performing some ethical calculus and deciding it was the right thing to do.  He never thought about it at all.  If he was motivated by anything it was to do a good job and advance his career, in a similar sense to so many of us.  And that is what made his actions all the more frightening.

They allow themselves to not think about the moral implications of their actions and eventually come to genuinely believe that their actions are no different than anyone else who is innocuously going about their day.

Arendt argued that this “banality of evil” was a stereotypical feature of totalitarian regimes.  However, even if you don’t live under the thumb of such a regime, this banality can still raise its ugly head.  “Totalitarian solutions may well survive the fall of totalitarian regimes in the form of strong temptations which will come up whenever it seems impossible to alleviate political, social, or economic misery in a manner worthy of man.”[2]

An animal can become violent when it feels threatened and backed into a corner.  Survival instincts kick in and it will act in a way that it may not if it wasn’t in that desperate predicament.  As humans, our “corner” may be the weight of extreme economic, social or political pressure.  Someone who falls on hard times and doesn’t have enough money to make ends meet may feel tempted to illegally take something from another person.  The stronger the weight, the bigger the temptation.  Any time these things happen, according to Arendt, people may start treating evil acts as if they are nothing out of the ordinary.   They allow themselves to not think about the moral implications of their actions and eventually come to genuinely believe that their actions are no different than anyone else who is innocuously going about their day.

But if we allow ourselves to think, there is a fundamental difference between removing an appendix and removing the unborn.

Arendt’s description has an uncanny resemblance to some modern attempts to justify abortion.  Take, for instance, the oft repeated line that abortion is a private medical procedure and as such the decision is best left to a woman and her doctor.  If we were talking about removing an appendix or getting wisdom teeth pulled, few people would disagree.  These are normal, everyday procedures about which we rarely give much thought.

But if we allow ourselves to think, there is a fundamental difference between removing an appendix and removing the unborn.  As Francis J. Beckwith says,

the conceptus is a new, although tiny, individual with a human genetic code with its own genomic sequence (with 46 chromosomes), which is neither her mother’s nor her father’s. From this point until death no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity an individual human being. Her genetic makeup is established at conception, determining to a great extent her own individual physical characteristics … The conceptus, from the very beginning, is a whole organism, with certain capacities, powers, and properties, whose parts work in concert to bring the whole to maturity.[3]

This science, however, never enters into the “private medical procedure” argument.  It is not that the scientific data is considered and rejected.  It is never even considered.

How do people reach this point?  If Arendt’s theory is correct, it is the natural consequence of strong temptations to relieve seemingly impossible suffering or pressure.  An unwanted pregnancy can provide that pressure.  We live in a society in which many corners feed women the lie that they cannot succeed if they have children.  They are told that if they carry a baby to term, all their hopes and dreams will go down the drain.  When women are constantly bombarded with such messaging, it is hardly surprising that they feel trapped and are tempted to rid themselves of the one thing they believe is trapping them: the unborn child.  In light of the scientific evidence, though, it is undeniable that this way out” involves killing a child.  If the woman allows herself to think things through, she will have to face up to this reality.  The immense temptation, however, produces people who instead permit themselves to see abortion as banal.  If they were to think through the moral consequences they may not like the conclusion.  So, instead, they simply fail to think about it at all.

We live in a society in which many corners feed women the lie that they cannot succeed if they have children.

Arendt’s banality does not explain every pro-choice argument.  Some (such as the argument from bodily autonomy) clearly do acknowledge the humanity of the unborn.  But for those that do not, we can fairly ask how it is that someone can come to a place where they do not even give a thought to whether abortion kills an innocent unborn child, especially in light of the overwhelming scientific evidence that this is precisely what is happening.  They advance arguments that assume there is no human life and speak as if the act of having an abortion is just as banal as baking twelve dozen rolls in the morning.  The remedy, then, if someone’s actions are characterized by thoughtlessness, is to promote thoughtfulness as best we can.  Talk to people.  Confront them (with grace) with the scientific evidence for the distinct humanity of the unborn, creating something of a cognitive dissonance between what they want to believe and the new information you provide.  When that happens, they will eventually have to try to resolve the inconsistency.

Bibliography

Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Penguin Books, 1963.

— — —. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Orlando: Harcourt, 1966.

Beckwith, Francis J. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

---

[1] Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, (New York: Penguin Books, 1963), 287-88 (emphasis in original).

[2] Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, (Orlando: Harcourt, 1966), 459.

[3] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 67.

When COVID hit last year, having an online presence (often including live streaming of our worship services) became a more common tool to help churches stay connected with their congregations.  However, many people may have discovered the hard way that we can’t just put anything we want online.  There are legal obstacles that need to be taken into account.  Chief among these is copyright.  As both an attorney for over two decades and the Media Director at Trinity Lutheran Church in Joppa, Maryland, this presented a proverbial dance that I was all too familiar with.

What is copyright?  In short, it is the protection given to content creators to make sure other people don’t take or use their content without their permission.  If you write a song, you don’t want another singer recording it and passing it off as their own.  If you make a movie, you don’t want a rival studio distributing it to theaters and making all the money off of it.  Copyright is a way of making sure that if you create something, you get to decide what to do with it.

A lot of the things we are used to having in our worship services are subject to copyright.  Do you sing music?  There are probably copyright issues.  Have you shown video clips?  Again, someone owns the copyright.  There are multiple levels of copyright.  The original composition/tune, particular arrangement, individual performance, and even the recording can all have separate levels of copyright.  So just because a hymn, for example, is in the public domain does not mean you can pull up a recording of the Westminster Children’s Choir singing it and play it on your stream.  Public domain only covers the original tune, not the arrangement, performance and recording.

So, does this mean we throw in the towel and don’t live stream anything?  Fortunately, no.  We just need to make sure we are doing it the right way.  For anything you put online, you need to make sure you have permission, and the way you get permission is by purchasing a license.

In Christian circles this means Christian Copyright Licensing International, or as they’re more commonly known, CCLI.  CCLI offers different levels of licensing depending on the needs of your church.  They have an enormous selection of Christian songs, both traditional and contemporary, in their Song Select library.  In fact, you’ll probably be hard pressed to find a Christian song that isn’t included.  One level of licensing covers things you may not even have known you need a license for.  For example, even if you aren’t live streaming, making photocopies of music to hand out to your choir or displaying copyrighted lyrics on a screen for your congregation to read are things for which you should have a license.  CCLI licenses allow you to do all of this.  Their lowest level also gives you permission to record your services to be viewed later.  If you want to live stream with your own musicians, you’ll need their Streaming License.  They even offer a Streaming Plus level that lets you use backing tracks or play the original artist’s master recordings during your service if you like.  The important thing is to look at the needs of your church, compare them to the various licensing options, and make sure you get the correct license for your needs.

There are two final caveats.  First, a CCLI license only covers songs played or sung during worship services.  It does not allow churches to make other online content with the music (i.e., podcasts, church produced music videos, etc.).  Second, it covers only the songs, not someone else’s music videos.  So, for example, you may be able to play the audio of a song over your stream, but that does not authorize you to show all the images contained in the artist’s music video for that song.  There is another layer of copyright protection for the video images.

The ramifications if you do not have an appropriate license could be severe.  First, your church could be sued for a copyright violation.  Second, whatever online platform you are using to live stream your services could revoke your ability to do so.  But most importantly, getting the proper licenses ensures that the person who put in the creative effort to make the content is getting properly compensated for their work.  If we are trying to set a Christ-centered example, then one way we can do that is to not use someone’s else’s property without their permission.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Matthew 28:19-20

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.

Joshua 1:9

Jesus Told Us to Go

Go, and do not be afraid. At once these instructions are both so easy, and yet for many Christians they are also so difficult. Despite God’s clear command to teach others about our faith and His reassurance that He will be with us, American culture is in the midst of a staggering trend against evangelism. In 1993, a Barna Group study showed that 89% of Christians believed it was the responsibility of every Christian to share their faith. By 2018 that number had dropped 25 points to only 64%. 65% of Christians said they share their faith by the way they live instead of (not in addition to) talking to people about Christ.

Why the Hesitation?

Why are people so hesitant to open their mouths and declare the name of Jesus? Yes, we should be living out our faith with our actions, but Jesus specifically said to “teach” people. That requires us to talk to them. Yet so many Christians are afraid to do so.

Have you ever heard any of these statements?

Conversations about religion always become so heated.
What if I don’t know how to answer their questions?
How do I even get the conversation started?

These are all common refrains that hold people back from talking about their faith. The reason they hesitate isn’t because they don’t know they should be evangelizing. It’s because they’re afraid they don’t know how.

Two Main Fears

In my experience people’s hesitancy is largely driven by two main fears. First, “How do I get the conversation started without sounding awkward?” Second, “What if I don’t know how to answer the other person’s questions?” What follows is a brief introduction to how we can overcome these fears while at the same time showing courtesy and respect so as to keep the conversation cordial.

Talk with People

First, how do we begin the conversation? For starters, we need to talk with people and not at them. We may have a whole list of important information about the gospel and we just have to get it out. We launch into a rapid-fire monologue, taking short breaths in between sentences, so the other person doesn’t have time to interrupt our incredibly important litany. After all, if they get a word in edgewise we might get sidetracked from our list.

Shields Up!

When we talk at someone, our primary concern is to convey all the information we think they need to hear. But when we talk with them we are more worried about listening to what they have to say and engaging in a two-way dialogue. The moment someone senses you are talking at them their defenses will go up and any opportunity for a meaningful conversation will be over. They’re not listening to you. While you’re rambling on, their mind is planning out their counterattack.

Talking at someone places the focus on us. Talking with someone places the focus on them. The people we are speaking to are individuals, not targets. Showing respect to someone means being invested in who they are, not just in what you want to tell them.

For many people I’ve probably just ratcheted up the anxiety level even higher. After all, it’s a lot harder to talk with someone than it is to talk at them. If I’m talking at a person, I’m in complete control. I don’t have to worry about anything they might say because … I’m never giving them a chance to say anything. But engaging in a dialogue is scarier. All of a sudden I have to worry about what someone else is going to say to me, and that’s what I don’t know if I can handle.

But dialogue doesn’t need to be scary. In fact, it’s a lot easier than many people think. There are three easy steps that can serve as a broad outline to any faith conversation, and with just a little bit of practice all of us can all become more comfortable declaring Christ both with our actions and our words.

First Pray

The first step should be the most obvious but is one I think too many people today skip over. Pray. God has told us not to be discouraged because He will be with us. Do we believe Him? Walking with us in our times of need is an incredibly small thing compared to dying on the cross. If God did the latter, shouldn’t we be able to trust Him to do the former? Yet we live in a culture that tells us to pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps and praises individual accomplishment. So ironically even in much of our ministry, many Christians try to “do it on their own” without first stopping and asking the Holy Spirit to be a part of what they are undertaking. Just like we should pray before every ministry meeting, we should pray when we set out to evangelize.

Then Look for Opportunities

Second, we need to look for opportunities. They’re all around us. Most of the time we’re just not paying attention. Michael Ramsden, President of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, tells a story about a time he was in a hair salon and overheard the owner say to a stylist next to her, “My business is doing so well but there must be more to life than this.”[1] That was an opportunity, and he took it. There is more to life than succeeding in business, no matter what our culture says. By paying attention to what was going on around him, Mr. Ramsden was able to start up a conversation that led to an hour and fifteen-minute discussion of the gospel.

Keep Doors Open

Not every opening will be that obvious. Recognizing when these chances arise will often require us to have at least a basic understanding of the topics that are permeating our culture. Maybe it’s a meme circulating on social media. Maybe it’s the acceptance speech some Hollywood celebrity just gave at an awards show. Maybe it’s the latest blockbuster in the movie theater. People are always talking about something, and those “somethings” very often will open the door to a discussion on faith. The question is simply whether we are going to walk through it. We don’t need to immerse ourselves in every aspect of contemporary Western culture. But at the same time, we can’t be completely oblivious to it either. Paul knew what the Greeks valued when he spoke at the Areopagus. We need to be aware of what unknown god our culture is worshipping.

Ask Questions

So, we’ve prayed, we’ve seen an opportunity arise, and now we’re wondering how to seize it. What do we say to get the conversation started? That leads into step 3, ask, don’t tell. This one seems a bit counter-intuitive to some people. If we have all this information we want the other person to hear, shouldn’t we be the one doing the talking and they be the one doing the listening? Actually, you can accomplish even more by primarily using questions, plus you gain some other important advantages.

Questions invite the other person to speak. They can’t shut down because you are talking at them if they are doing most of the talking. But even though they are doing most of the talking, you are actually in control of the conversation. Questions determine which topics are up for discussion, and you are the person asking all the questions. Finally, questions foster conversation. When one person is asking a question and another is giving an answer, there are two people invested in the discussion. Our goal is not to lecture, but to listen and have a dialogue.

Greg Koukl has a fantastic book called Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Anyone who wants to learn more about how to effectively evangelize should have a copy, read it, and keep it handy. Koukl calls his primary tactic the “Columbo Tactic,” named after the famous television detective played by Peter Falk. Columbo was famous for asking question after question while investigating a case, and our approach to evangelism can look very similar.

Three Ways to Direct a Conversation

Koukl explains three ways we can use questions to direct a conversation. The first is to use them to gather more information. An example is, “What do you mean by that?”[2] When a person makes a statement, the first thing we should do is ask a question. Something of the variety of “What do you mean by that?” not only allows us to make sure we are understanding them correctly, but sometimes it gets the other person to think through what they’re saying. In today’s social media age, many people are merely repeating slogans they’ve heard that sounded good, but they have no idea what they actually mean.

The second way to use questions is to reverse the burden of proof. Koukl’s example for this is, “How did you come to that conclusion?”[3] There is a trap that almost all of us have fallen into from time to time. Someone makes a statement that we know is false. Our immediate instinct is to explain to them why it is false. So, we launch into our long explanation, rattling off all our evidence, convinced that in the end the other person will come around and see things our way. If we do that, we end up talking at people again and their defensive walls will spring right up.

There’s a better way to handle this situation. When someone makes a statement that runs contrary to what God has told us to be true, just ask them a question. Start out by making sure you are understanding them correctly with “What do you mean by that?” But then follow it up with “How did you come to that conclusion?” It may surprise you to hear that the vast majority of conversations I engage in with people when they make claims like this never need to get past this second question. Most people have no idea how they arrived at any particular conclusion. Their claim wasn’t borne out of some rational evaluation of the arguments and evidence resulting in a well thought out conclusion. They read some meme online that they agreed with, so now they’re just repeating it. If someone else makes a claim, it is not your job to refute it. It is their job to defend it. Asking them politely “How did you come to that conclusion” is one way to respectfully place the burden on them, where it belongs.

The third way Koukl suggests we can use questions is to make a point.[4] This is where you finally have the opportunity to inject all that information you have inside your head into the conversation. But you still need to resist the temptation to talk at people. The most inviting way to insert information into the discussion is to use a question. “Have you ever considered…?” “What do you think about…?”

Ask, Don’t Tell

There’s a fundamental difference between merely telling people information and asking them questions about it. When you tell, you may come across as if you believe you are smarter or superior. But when you ask, you are showing genuine interest in them and their opinions. At the same time, you are inviting them to think through something they may not have thought about before. They are much more likely to do so if they don’t feel like they are being “preached at.”

Suppose you know absolutely nothing about embryology, but you hear someone say, “Christians have no right to object to abortion unless they’re willing to take care of all the extra babies that will be born if abortion is outlawed.” You can still ask them a “what do you mean by that” type of question. For example, “I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. You’re saying that no one has the right to object to unborn children being killed unless they’re willing to take care of those unborn children, is that right?” You could follow it up with a question of the “how did you come to that conclusion” variety. “How is it that my not having the resources to personally take care of a child makes it okay to kill it?”

Too often people hesitate to evangelize because they don’t think they know enough. They want to leave that sort of thing to the “professionals,” like their pastor. But each and every one of us is expected to share our faith, not just those in church leadership. Anyone can ask questions, so all of us know enough to get out there and get started.

Admit You Don’t Know

But what if someone says something that you don’t know how to answer? That is one of the biggest causes of anxiety, and yet at the same time it is one of the easiest questions to answer. If someone asks you something you don’t know how to answer, you politely say, “I don’t know the answer to that. Let me look into it and I’ll get back to you.” Then you politely end the conversation.

Conversion Is the Holy Spirit’s Job

We often put way too much pressure on ourselves. We think that each and every conversation needs to result in the other person accepting Christ or else it was useless. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have to remember that conversion isn’t our job. We can’t convert anybody anyway. That’s the Holy Spirit’s doing. Our job is to do as we have been instructed, so that if the Spirit wants to use us as an instrument through which He works, then we are obediently available.

To Sum It Up

Greg Koukl describes a more modest goal he sets for himself when engaging in evangelistic conversations. “All I want to do is put a stone in someone’s shoe. I want to give him something worth thinking about, something he can’t ignore because it continues to poke at him in a good way.”[5] We worry so much about what other people will say because we think we need to have all the answers. We don’t. Just set yourself a modest goal and get out there and share the gospel. First, pray. Second, look for opportunities. Third, ask, don’t tell. Use questions to gather information, to reverse the burden of proof and to make a point. We all know that we should be sharing God’s good news. Hopefully this basic outline can help reassure you as to how.

---

[1] Centre for Public Christianity, “Conversation Apologetics – Michael Ramsden,” March 24, 2018, video, 44:32, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MJb5_2CABI.

[2] Greg Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,2009), 49-52.

[3] Ibid., 61-64.

[4] Ibid., 77-87.

[5] Ibid., 38.