What do you think?
Rate this book
Street Smarts: Using Questions to Answer Christianity's Toughest Challenges
Street Smarts by Gregory Koukl helps Christians better engage in productive conversations with those who challenge their convictions on a variety of issues. A follow-up to Koukl's best-selling Tactics , this book focuses on revealing the fundamental flaws in common, current challenges to Christian beliefs and values. It then provides individual strategies to exploit those shortcomings by offering model questions and sample dialogues to help guide believers in genial, yet persuasive, conversations. Koukl begins by explaining the important difference in evangelism between a harvest approach (reaping) and a gardening approach (sowing). He then provides an overview of the tactical game plan he uses to have fruitful "gardening" conversations with those who are not yet Christians. Subsequent chapters tackle specific areas of challenge that Christians frequently face in discussions "on the street," as it were--in those conversations with friends, family, or critics that believers often avoid because they feel out of their element, vulnerable, or exposed. With the specific challenges he addresses, Koukl shows precisely how and why each falters. instructing the reader in a lucid, well-organized, and easy-to-follow fashion. He then provides a specific set of questions--the same questions Koukl uses in his own encounters--that are embedded in sample mini-dialogues the Christian can use to exploit those flaws in an amicable, yet incisive, way. Some questions are used to get the discussion moving forward in a disarming fashion. Others are aimed more directly at the flaws or liabilities of the typical challenges people raise. Questions encourage challengers to think more carefully about their objections or consider problems with their own views that they may not have considered or even have been aware of. Street Smarts equips Christians to handle tough challenges in a straightforward and user-friendly way. It provides the practical tools they need to keep them in the driver's seat of otherwise difficult and discomfiting conversations. It enables them to stand up for Christ in a safe, genial, yet effective way.
352 pages, Paperback
Published September 12, 2023
313 people are currently reading
1026 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
October 11, 2023
Classic Koukl. Thoughtful, practical, and immensely helpful. This felt like an updated version of Tactics, but with much more guidance on how to address the specific issues of our culture.
My main criticism is that I wish he would have included something about the role of emotions, intuitions, and experiences in our reasoning process. Much of the information and advice given seemed to assume we relate to people on a purely rational, logical level. I could imagine many of the conversations in the book going differently, for example, with real people who get defensive and insecure about their position. In other words: we (sadly) don’t always follow the most obvious, logical process of considering answers and objections to our beliefs.
This criticism aside, I think this book provides great insight for how Christians can winsomely engage on some of the most important and controversial issues of our day. It also provides a great primer or review for believers who want to strengthen their knowledge of basic Christian convictions.
My main criticism is that I wish he would have included something about the role of emotions, intuitions, and experiences in our reasoning process. Much of the information and advice given seemed to assume we relate to people on a purely rational, logical level. I could imagine many of the conversations in the book going differently, for example, with real people who get defensive and insecure about their position. In other words: we (sadly) don’t always follow the most obvious, logical process of considering answers and objections to our beliefs.
This criticism aside, I think this book provides great insight for how Christians can winsomely engage on some of the most important and controversial issues of our day. It also provides a great primer or review for believers who want to strengthen their knowledge of basic Christian convictions.
Read
December 22, 2023i enjoyed this for the most part, read some of it w/ our book club. very practical!
October 30, 2023
If you've read Koukl's previous book, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions or listen to his podcast at str.org, then you are likely familiar with much of the content in this book.
The unique aspect of this book, the area where it really shines, is the many sample dialogs. What kind of questions do I actually use with people? How might a conversation actually play out? What pushback should I expect? Each chapter has several dialogs that show how you might use questions to move a conversation forward in a particular topic, giving realistic examples of how you might maneuver in a discussion with a friend, colleague or family member.
Understanding what you want to communicate is key, but you also need to know how to communicate it. And for one who learns well with examples, I really like the approach and format of this book.
The unique aspect of this book, the area where it really shines, is the many sample dialogs. What kind of questions do I actually use with people? How might a conversation actually play out? What pushback should I expect? Each chapter has several dialogs that show how you might use questions to move a conversation forward in a particular topic, giving realistic examples of how you might maneuver in a discussion with a friend, colleague or family member.
Understanding what you want to communicate is key, but you also need to know how to communicate it. And for one who learns well with examples, I really like the approach and format of this book.
September 25, 2023
I think a large chunk of this book will feel redundant if you've recently read (and/or are very familiar with) Tactics (by the same author), but if it's been a bit or you want to refresh your skills, then this book feels like a genuine sequel. You don't need to have read Tactics first, but I think it will be best to start with that book.
This is a great book for Christians to read who feel unsure about how to engage others in religious conversations. I don't think that non-Christians will enjoy this book, though (but they're not the intended audience) since it's not written to engage them, it's written about how to engage them.
This is a great book for Christians to read who feel unsure about how to engage others in religious conversations. I don't think that non-Christians will enjoy this book, though (but they're not the intended audience) since it's not written to engage them, it's written about how to engage them.
May 20, 2025
Koukl does a good job of explaining why a tactical approach to evangelism is wise ,not only for the evangelist, but also for their audience. Asking questions helps bring understanding to opposing arguments while also finding the weaknesses in them. This creates space not only for people to be fully heard but for Christians to appropriately input Godly wisdom in situations (sometimes with questions alone). Although I don’t agree on everything said I think the author does a great job explaining the basis of his teachings and why they make sense scripturally. It was a very interesting/convicting read and brought a lot of answers to my own questions about the faith.
April 11, 2024
Pretty repetitive of tactics, but honestly, I enjoyed it a lot better. It felt more balanced of being personable and honest instead of just trying to negotiate your way around opposing views. As someone heading into a new workplace that doesn’t share my morals and values as much this was much more helpful and applicable than Tactics was for me.
March 22, 2025
Practical advice for dealing with current culture by Christians.
May 27, 2024
Highly practical guide to handling tough conversations about Christianity effectively and comfortably, using questions to answer challenges by exposing flaws in incorrect views about God or reality. It summarizes the Bible's teachings on a subject, then tells how to use it to make the case that the Christian view of reality is true, including many sample conversations. The goal is to help nonbelievers see what's true so they can move toward believing in God.
The book addresses several controversial topics, including relativism, atheism, the problem of evil, Jesus' divinity, the Bible's trustworthiness, science, abortion, marriage, and LGBT issues.
The book builds on Tactics , and repeats some content from that book.
Street Smarts approach
1. Understand other person's view. Ask, "What do you mean by that?" to clarify.
2. Reflect on challenge or research to identify flaw in challenge.
3. Plan response using questions to expose flaw.
Notes
Atheism, Distractions
Saying you have no belief in God is different than saying you have no belief about God. If you think someone is wrong for believing God exists, you must believe He doesn't exist.
Challenge: "You're basically an atheist because you don't believe in almost all gods. I just believe in one less god than you."
"Are all married men basically bachelors because they aren't married to all women besides their wives? The difference between believing in 1 God or none is the difference between theism or atheism. I reject other gods because I have no reason to think they exist. I believe in the God of the Bible for many reasons."
God, The Best Explanation
Challenge: "There's no evidence for God."
"If you saw a shoe print in the sand, what would you conclude? Would you think it was a freak accident of nature? What if you found a blueprint of something complex and functional? Would you think it was the result of a freak accident of nature? What do you make of the human body, including DNA?"
Multiverse theory is hypothetical, lacking empirical, observational verification. It doesn't get around need to explain fine-tuning of universe, because any universe-generating mechanism would need to be finely tuned.
Existence and intricate design of universe (seen in physics and biology) is better explained by intelligent Designer than atheistic explanations.
Evil, Atheism's Fatal Flow
In a materialistic universe, nothing can be good or evil.
Challenge: "The existence of evil proves God doesn't exist."
"How do you feel about [something clearly immoral]? When you say these things are evil, are you talking about the actions themselves, or only about your feelings or preferences about them? Are they only evil for you, or for everyone? Where does your standard come from by which you label things good or evil? What governing authority makes the laws of the universe that are broken when people do evil things?" "You're saying God doesn't exist because some things happen that are wrong for you, but are OK for others. How is that an argument against God's existence?"
Moral argument for God
1. If there's no God, there's no objective morality.
2. There is objective morality (evidenced by evil).
3. Therefore, there's a God.
"Problem" of evil is only a problem if evil is real. To say something is evil is to make a moral judgment. Moral judgments require a moral standard/law, and that requires a moral lawgiver. If standard is transcendent, lawgiver must be transcendent, too.
Good Without God?
Challenge: "Morality is a product of evolution."
"If morality is simply beliefs or feelings in a person based on evolution, that's relativism, right? But you said objective evil exists. How does relativistic morality help us understand how objective evil exists?" "You're saying we could've evolved a different morality, right? That would mean nothing is inherently wrong; it's only wrong because our evolution makes us think it is. And you think my beliefs about morality are wrong. If evolution causes some people to have wrong beliefs about morality, what other false beliefs has evolution given us? How can we trust any of our rational faculties?"
Challenge: "Physical things are all that exist, and science can tell us everything we need to know."
"So all our thoughts, emotions, and reasoning governed completely by laws of physics? If that's true, and all our choices are determined, and free will doesn't exist, how can morality exist, since it requires ability to choose between good and evil?" "How can a strictly materialistic process governed by laws of physics create non-physical moral obligations?
Evolution might be able to explain subjective moral feelings, but can never explain objective moral obligations. Biology can't make anything inherently good or evil.
Jesus the Son
There's no prima facie evidence that Jesus' resurrection is a mythological construct based on myths of dying and rising gods.
At least 17 ancient, independent secular sources (including Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Flavius Josephus) plus much archaeological evidence, point to Jesus' historical existence. Western scholars of antiquity don't doubt Jesus' existence.
Challenge: "There's no evidence that Jesus existed. He's a myth based on other myths."
"Does it strike you as strange that the world uses a calendar based on the birth of a man who never existed? Did you check any of those ancient myths yourself, to see if they parallel Jesus' life? Did you check any Ancient Near Eastern historians? Did you know almost no academic who specializes in the time of Jesus, including critics of Christianity, thinks Jesus was a myth?"
Jesus claimed to be God
• He was identified by one of His closest followers as the omnipotent Creator of everything (Jn 1:3).
• He applied to Himself the unique, holy name for God (Jn 8:58).
• He received worship from people (e.g., Mt 14:33).
• He was executed for blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God (which Jews understood as claim to deity).
Talking to Jehovah's Witnesses about their mistranslation of Jn 1:1 is almost never productive. Instead, focus on Jn 1:3, which shows that everything was created by Jesus (see rest of Jn 1).
Christ the Savior
Challenge: "Christians think theirs is the only right way. That's so arrogant and narrow-minded."
"Where do you think that idea came from? It came from Jesus. Do you think He was arrogant and narrow-minded? He taught He was the only way to Heaven. Do you think He was mistaken?"
The Bible, Ancient Words, Ever True?
It's not profitable to argue with non-Christians about inerrancy. You don't need to convince someone of inerrancy to communicate the Gospel, and debating inerrancy invites an argument about alleged contradictions. Those can be dealt with, but are an unnecessary distraction. Earliest Christians didn't make case based on inerrant NT, but on historical record of Christ's death and resurrection. Inerrancy isn't necessary to communicate truth.
Challenge: "You don't take the Bible literally, do you?"
"I take the Bible in its ordinary sense; I try to take the words with the precision I think the writer intended." If asked to clarify, say, "Do you read the sports page literally? When I read it, I read facts as such, and figures of speech (e.g., crushed, destroyed) as such."
Challenge: "God is a monster for ordering the destruction of the Canaanites."
"If you were aware that religious groups were molesting large numbers of children and ritualistically burning them alive, would you want God to do something about that? The Canaanites sexually abused children and ritually sacrificed children, including infants, burning them alive. God brought armies to end this. Later, when the Israelites sacrificed their children, God brought armies to end this."
God, The Science Stopper
Challenge: "Science has shown that God isn't real."
"How exactly has science shown that supernatural things aren't real? Science studies the physical universe using our senses. If there were immaterial things, would they be physical? How can an empirical way of knowing things show that non-empirical things don't exist? Science has never produced empirical evidence that supernatural events can't happen; it's simply assumed that only physical things exist."
Science can't say what's possible or impossible; it's purely descriptive; it can only tell what actually happens in physical reality. Only philosophy can assess what's possible or impossible. In a purely physical reality, everything must be based on physical cause and effect. But in a reality with powers beyond physical cause and effect, supernatural events are possible.
Challenge: "Intelligent design and creationism are religion, not science."
"Usually when an option is rejected, it's not because it's a certain category of answer (such religious), but because it's based on incorrect facts or faulty thinking. What are the specific reasons you don't think intelligent design is a good explanation for, for example, the origin of life or the info in DNA?"
Challenge: "Just because science can't explain everything yet doesn't mean we won't discover the explanation eventually. Appealing to a supernatural cause is the 'God of the gaps' fallacy."
"You're assuming that the universe is purely physical, and every event must have a physical explanation. But that's exactly what we're debating. Is it possible that some gaps in our scientific knowledge are because we're trying to use science to give answers it isn't equipped to give?" "What about concrete evidence that a supernatural Designer is a good explanation for things like the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, or the origin of life? Isn't saying that science will some day fill gaps in knowledge 'naturalism of the gaps'? Why is that OK, but appealing to God to account for the gaps isn't?"
Using God as an explanation for gaps in scientific knowledge isn't based on what we don't know, but what we do know; design can be empirically detected.
Abortion, Only One Question
Unborn are
• Alive and growing
• Distinct from mother (not part of mother's body)
• Individual human beings with inherent value
Simple pro-life argument
1. It's wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being.
2. Abortion intentionally takes the life of an innocent human being.
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Challenge: any statement in favor of abortion
"If the unborn isn't a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary; do whatever you want. If the unborn is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate. Do you think it's OK to kill an innocent human being for the reasons people give for abortion (e.g., right to privacy, right to choose, person is too expensive, they don't want to take care of the person, person interferes with their career, etc.?"
Challenge: "Abortion is a private choice between a woman and her doctor.
"Do we allow parents to abuse their children if it's done in private or with the consent of a doctor? The issue isn't privacy or a doctor's consent, but whether the person is human."
Challenge: "Many women can't afford another child."
"When kids get too expensive, can we kill them?"
Challenge: "Women shouldn't be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world."
"Many homeless people are unwanted. May we kill them? If the unborn are human like the homeless, we can't simply kill them because they're unwanted."
Challenge: "You can't force your morality on women."
"Would you force your morality on a mother who's physically abusing her 2-year-old?"
Challenge: "The government shouldn't tell me what I can do with my body."
"Can the government say what you can do with your body concerning your 2-year-old?" "Do you think the government should be allowed to protect your offspring when your offspring is outside your body? Why? How about when offspring is inside your body? Why does location make a difference to the offspring's value?"
Challenge: "A fetus isn't a human; it's just a blob of tissue."
"Aren't we all blobs of tissue? Is the fetus alive? Is it growing? Does its DNA differ from the mother's? If you tested its DNA, what type of creature would the test show?"
Challenge: "It's not wrong to kill potential persons."
"What's the difference between a disposable human being and a valuable human person? If the unborn aren't persons due to their size or appearance, ability, location, or dependence, what about other humans who are abnormal in those aspects?" "Were you ever an unborn child? Then killing that unborn child would've killed you; not a potential you."
Abortion, Beyond the Basics
Challenge: "My body, my choice."
"Could a woman abort her baby because she doesn't like its race or sex? Do you object to a woman taking drugs while pregnant, which can harm the baby?"
Challenge: "No one should be forced to use their body, or even their time and energy, to support someone."
"If someone needed a kidney, what would your options be? You could donate a kidney or walk away. You could also kill them, which would remove the problem. With pregnancy, you can't simply walk away; you must either allow the fetus to grow or kill it. Why should the woman have the right to kill someone she doesn't want to help?"
Challenge: any statement in favor of abortion
"In general, are you committed to the ideas of human rights and equality? Do all humans have an equal right to be protected from violence? Do animals have the same right to life? Why not? What do all humans share that gives us equal rights, that other creatures don't have? Their human nature. Don't unborn humans also have a human nature?"
Challenge: "You're a man."
"How does that affect my right to object to abortion? Would you object if I were abusing my wife? Why? You're not married to her."
All humans, including the unborn, are made in God's image (Gen 9:6; cf. Gen 1:26-27), so they're covered by the 6th Commandment (don't murder; Ex 20:13).
Challenge: "The Bible doesn't address abortion."
"It's not named specifically, but neither is child abuse. If I could show you that an unborn human is the same person before and after birth, so the 6th Commandment (don't murder) would apply to the unborn, would that change your view? Let's look at Lk 1:41-44. Who was the baby who jumped for joy? Why did he jump for joy? If Mary or Elizabeth had had an abortion, who would they have killed?"
Marriage, Sex, Gender and Commonsense
Challenge: "You should use people's preferred pronouns."
"Why? Oh, to be respectful and make them comfortable? But to do so requires me to be dishonest about my convictions. Why not be nice to me by respecting my deeply held beliefs? Why are you calling me names when I disagree with you? Is that kind or respectful?"
Cultures don't sanction marriage because of love, but because heterosexual marriages produce children, which are key to society's survival.
Challenge: "You don't believe in marriage equality."
"What do you mean by marriage equality? Should children be allowed to get married? We both have definitions for marriage. The question is which definition is right."
Challenge: "The Bible doesn't prohibit loving, consensual same-sex relationships, only abusive forms."
"The Bible condemns behavior, not relationships. Every passage about homosexuality gives an unqualified condemnation. Are adultery and fornication OK if they're loving and consensual?"
When pressured to participate in training that requires you to act against your convictions, respectfully decline. If pressed, say, "It appears you're using your influence as my employer to get me to accept your politics. Do you think that's a proper use of your power?"
Final Words for the Street
Responding to barrage of objections
1. Slow down conversation to collect your thoughts.
2. Isolate challenges from rhetorical noise.
3. Assess challenge 1 at a time.
Make conversations more comfortable
• Ask questions.
• Contextualize. Frame your points in terms of other person's interests or profession.
• Be nice.
• Recognize that results are up to God.
The book addresses several controversial topics, including relativism, atheism, the problem of evil, Jesus' divinity, the Bible's trustworthiness, science, abortion, marriage, and LGBT issues.
The book builds on Tactics , and repeats some content from that book.
Street Smarts approach
1. Understand other person's view. Ask, "What do you mean by that?" to clarify.
2. Reflect on challenge or research to identify flaw in challenge.
3. Plan response using questions to expose flaw.
Notes
Atheism, Distractions
Saying you have no belief in God is different than saying you have no belief about God. If you think someone is wrong for believing God exists, you must believe He doesn't exist.
Challenge: "You're basically an atheist because you don't believe in almost all gods. I just believe in one less god than you."
"Are all married men basically bachelors because they aren't married to all women besides their wives? The difference between believing in 1 God or none is the difference between theism or atheism. I reject other gods because I have no reason to think they exist. I believe in the God of the Bible for many reasons."
God, The Best Explanation
Challenge: "There's no evidence for God."
"If you saw a shoe print in the sand, what would you conclude? Would you think it was a freak accident of nature? What if you found a blueprint of something complex and functional? Would you think it was the result of a freak accident of nature? What do you make of the human body, including DNA?"
Multiverse theory is hypothetical, lacking empirical, observational verification. It doesn't get around need to explain fine-tuning of universe, because any universe-generating mechanism would need to be finely tuned.
Existence and intricate design of universe (seen in physics and biology) is better explained by intelligent Designer than atheistic explanations.
Evil, Atheism's Fatal Flow
In a materialistic universe, nothing can be good or evil.
Challenge: "The existence of evil proves God doesn't exist."
"How do you feel about [something clearly immoral]? When you say these things are evil, are you talking about the actions themselves, or only about your feelings or preferences about them? Are they only evil for you, or for everyone? Where does your standard come from by which you label things good or evil? What governing authority makes the laws of the universe that are broken when people do evil things?" "You're saying God doesn't exist because some things happen that are wrong for you, but are OK for others. How is that an argument against God's existence?"
Moral argument for God
1. If there's no God, there's no objective morality.
2. There is objective morality (evidenced by evil).
3. Therefore, there's a God.
"Problem" of evil is only a problem if evil is real. To say something is evil is to make a moral judgment. Moral judgments require a moral standard/law, and that requires a moral lawgiver. If standard is transcendent, lawgiver must be transcendent, too.
Good Without God?
Challenge: "Morality is a product of evolution."
"If morality is simply beliefs or feelings in a person based on evolution, that's relativism, right? But you said objective evil exists. How does relativistic morality help us understand how objective evil exists?" "You're saying we could've evolved a different morality, right? That would mean nothing is inherently wrong; it's only wrong because our evolution makes us think it is. And you think my beliefs about morality are wrong. If evolution causes some people to have wrong beliefs about morality, what other false beliefs has evolution given us? How can we trust any of our rational faculties?"
Challenge: "Physical things are all that exist, and science can tell us everything we need to know."
"So all our thoughts, emotions, and reasoning governed completely by laws of physics? If that's true, and all our choices are determined, and free will doesn't exist, how can morality exist, since it requires ability to choose between good and evil?" "How can a strictly materialistic process governed by laws of physics create non-physical moral obligations?
Evolution might be able to explain subjective moral feelings, but can never explain objective moral obligations. Biology can't make anything inherently good or evil.
Jesus the Son
There's no prima facie evidence that Jesus' resurrection is a mythological construct based on myths of dying and rising gods.
At least 17 ancient, independent secular sources (including Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Flavius Josephus) plus much archaeological evidence, point to Jesus' historical existence. Western scholars of antiquity don't doubt Jesus' existence.
Challenge: "There's no evidence that Jesus existed. He's a myth based on other myths."
"Does it strike you as strange that the world uses a calendar based on the birth of a man who never existed? Did you check any of those ancient myths yourself, to see if they parallel Jesus' life? Did you check any Ancient Near Eastern historians? Did you know almost no academic who specializes in the time of Jesus, including critics of Christianity, thinks Jesus was a myth?"
Jesus claimed to be God
• He was identified by one of His closest followers as the omnipotent Creator of everything (Jn 1:3).
• He applied to Himself the unique, holy name for God (Jn 8:58).
• He received worship from people (e.g., Mt 14:33).
• He was executed for blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God (which Jews understood as claim to deity).
Talking to Jehovah's Witnesses about their mistranslation of Jn 1:1 is almost never productive. Instead, focus on Jn 1:3, which shows that everything was created by Jesus (see rest of Jn 1).
Christ the Savior
Challenge: "Christians think theirs is the only right way. That's so arrogant and narrow-minded."
"Where do you think that idea came from? It came from Jesus. Do you think He was arrogant and narrow-minded? He taught He was the only way to Heaven. Do you think He was mistaken?"
The Bible, Ancient Words, Ever True?
It's not profitable to argue with non-Christians about inerrancy. You don't need to convince someone of inerrancy to communicate the Gospel, and debating inerrancy invites an argument about alleged contradictions. Those can be dealt with, but are an unnecessary distraction. Earliest Christians didn't make case based on inerrant NT, but on historical record of Christ's death and resurrection. Inerrancy isn't necessary to communicate truth.
Challenge: "You don't take the Bible literally, do you?"
"I take the Bible in its ordinary sense; I try to take the words with the precision I think the writer intended." If asked to clarify, say, "Do you read the sports page literally? When I read it, I read facts as such, and figures of speech (e.g., crushed, destroyed) as such."
Challenge: "God is a monster for ordering the destruction of the Canaanites."
"If you were aware that religious groups were molesting large numbers of children and ritualistically burning them alive, would you want God to do something about that? The Canaanites sexually abused children and ritually sacrificed children, including infants, burning them alive. God brought armies to end this. Later, when the Israelites sacrificed their children, God brought armies to end this."
God, The Science Stopper
Challenge: "Science has shown that God isn't real."
"How exactly has science shown that supernatural things aren't real? Science studies the physical universe using our senses. If there were immaterial things, would they be physical? How can an empirical way of knowing things show that non-empirical things don't exist? Science has never produced empirical evidence that supernatural events can't happen; it's simply assumed that only physical things exist."
Science can't say what's possible or impossible; it's purely descriptive; it can only tell what actually happens in physical reality. Only philosophy can assess what's possible or impossible. In a purely physical reality, everything must be based on physical cause and effect. But in a reality with powers beyond physical cause and effect, supernatural events are possible.
Challenge: "Intelligent design and creationism are religion, not science."
"Usually when an option is rejected, it's not because it's a certain category of answer (such religious), but because it's based on incorrect facts or faulty thinking. What are the specific reasons you don't think intelligent design is a good explanation for, for example, the origin of life or the info in DNA?"
Challenge: "Just because science can't explain everything yet doesn't mean we won't discover the explanation eventually. Appealing to a supernatural cause is the 'God of the gaps' fallacy."
"You're assuming that the universe is purely physical, and every event must have a physical explanation. But that's exactly what we're debating. Is it possible that some gaps in our scientific knowledge are because we're trying to use science to give answers it isn't equipped to give?" "What about concrete evidence that a supernatural Designer is a good explanation for things like the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, or the origin of life? Isn't saying that science will some day fill gaps in knowledge 'naturalism of the gaps'? Why is that OK, but appealing to God to account for the gaps isn't?"
Using God as an explanation for gaps in scientific knowledge isn't based on what we don't know, but what we do know; design can be empirically detected.
Abortion, Only One Question
Unborn are
• Alive and growing
• Distinct from mother (not part of mother's body)
• Individual human beings with inherent value
Simple pro-life argument
1. It's wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being.
2. Abortion intentionally takes the life of an innocent human being.
3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Challenge: any statement in favor of abortion
"If the unborn isn't a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary; do whatever you want. If the unborn is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate. Do you think it's OK to kill an innocent human being for the reasons people give for abortion (e.g., right to privacy, right to choose, person is too expensive, they don't want to take care of the person, person interferes with their career, etc.?"
Challenge: "Abortion is a private choice between a woman and her doctor.
"Do we allow parents to abuse their children if it's done in private or with the consent of a doctor? The issue isn't privacy or a doctor's consent, but whether the person is human."
Challenge: "Many women can't afford another child."
"When kids get too expensive, can we kill them?"
Challenge: "Women shouldn't be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world."
"Many homeless people are unwanted. May we kill them? If the unborn are human like the homeless, we can't simply kill them because they're unwanted."
Challenge: "You can't force your morality on women."
"Would you force your morality on a mother who's physically abusing her 2-year-old?"
Challenge: "The government shouldn't tell me what I can do with my body."
"Can the government say what you can do with your body concerning your 2-year-old?" "Do you think the government should be allowed to protect your offspring when your offspring is outside your body? Why? How about when offspring is inside your body? Why does location make a difference to the offspring's value?"
Challenge: "A fetus isn't a human; it's just a blob of tissue."
"Aren't we all blobs of tissue? Is the fetus alive? Is it growing? Does its DNA differ from the mother's? If you tested its DNA, what type of creature would the test show?"
Challenge: "It's not wrong to kill potential persons."
"What's the difference between a disposable human being and a valuable human person? If the unborn aren't persons due to their size or appearance, ability, location, or dependence, what about other humans who are abnormal in those aspects?" "Were you ever an unborn child? Then killing that unborn child would've killed you; not a potential you."
Abortion, Beyond the Basics
Challenge: "My body, my choice."
"Could a woman abort her baby because she doesn't like its race or sex? Do you object to a woman taking drugs while pregnant, which can harm the baby?"
Challenge: "No one should be forced to use their body, or even their time and energy, to support someone."
"If someone needed a kidney, what would your options be? You could donate a kidney or walk away. You could also kill them, which would remove the problem. With pregnancy, you can't simply walk away; you must either allow the fetus to grow or kill it. Why should the woman have the right to kill someone she doesn't want to help?"
Challenge: any statement in favor of abortion
"In general, are you committed to the ideas of human rights and equality? Do all humans have an equal right to be protected from violence? Do animals have the same right to life? Why not? What do all humans share that gives us equal rights, that other creatures don't have? Their human nature. Don't unborn humans also have a human nature?"
Challenge: "You're a man."
"How does that affect my right to object to abortion? Would you object if I were abusing my wife? Why? You're not married to her."
All humans, including the unborn, are made in God's image (Gen 9:6; cf. Gen 1:26-27), so they're covered by the 6th Commandment (don't murder; Ex 20:13).
Challenge: "The Bible doesn't address abortion."
"It's not named specifically, but neither is child abuse. If I could show you that an unborn human is the same person before and after birth, so the 6th Commandment (don't murder) would apply to the unborn, would that change your view? Let's look at Lk 1:41-44. Who was the baby who jumped for joy? Why did he jump for joy? If Mary or Elizabeth had had an abortion, who would they have killed?"
Marriage, Sex, Gender and Commonsense
Challenge: "You should use people's preferred pronouns."
"Why? Oh, to be respectful and make them comfortable? But to do so requires me to be dishonest about my convictions. Why not be nice to me by respecting my deeply held beliefs? Why are you calling me names when I disagree with you? Is that kind or respectful?"
Cultures don't sanction marriage because of love, but because heterosexual marriages produce children, which are key to society's survival.
Challenge: "You don't believe in marriage equality."
"What do you mean by marriage equality? Should children be allowed to get married? We both have definitions for marriage. The question is which definition is right."
Challenge: "The Bible doesn't prohibit loving, consensual same-sex relationships, only abusive forms."
"The Bible condemns behavior, not relationships. Every passage about homosexuality gives an unqualified condemnation. Are adultery and fornication OK if they're loving and consensual?"
When pressured to participate in training that requires you to act against your convictions, respectfully decline. If pressed, say, "It appears you're using your influence as my employer to get me to accept your politics. Do you think that's a proper use of your power?"
Final Words for the Street
Responding to barrage of objections
1. Slow down conversation to collect your thoughts.
2. Isolate challenges from rhetorical noise.
3. Assess challenge 1 at a time.
Make conversations more comfortable
• Ask questions.
• Contextualize. Frame your points in terms of other person's interests or profession.
• Be nice.
• Recognize that results are up to God.
December 23, 2025
In Street Smarts, Gregory Koukl again tries to teach the faithful how to defend the teeming absurdities of Christian belief. His approach is one that is also advocated at less length in some of his other writings: keep on asking questions, and for Heaven’s sake, try not to answer any. As he puts it, “If you stick with questions, you’ll have nothing to defend, so you’re in a safe place, not vulnerable to counterattack” (p. 30, Kindle edition)” and “Put simply, questions keep you safe” (p. 34). Once again invoking the fictional TV detective Colombo, he reiterates that “your tactical maneuvers are meant to provide safety for you in conversation” (36). He deals largely in imaginary question and answer sessions during which his fictional respondent is invariably vanquished; at one point, he even recasts one of these as a monologue and points out that a moderately intelligent respondent could shred his argument. But he doesn’t question his conclusions, only points out that you can’t win if your respondent gets the chance to talk back (p. 45). This gives all that follows a distinct aroma of sophistry – the art of winning the argument rather than of finding the truth – but when your arguments are as shaky as the author’s are here, perhaps that is a counsel of prudence.
You see, Gregory Koukl lives in a fantasy world. He is convinced that all around us are shadowy evil spirits who deploy “age-old schemes that originated in the invisible realm” and “a foundational lie that goes back to the very beginning” (p. 48). He’s seeing things in “unseen realms”: “We live in a world made by an invisible Being, and this world is thick with invisible things” (p. 50). (Are any of them in the room with us right now? the doctor usually says at this point.) The devil “holds people captive to do his bidding by trickery and deceit, blinding the minds of those who are perishing, keeping them from coming to their senses and seeing the world the way it really is” (52). And God does… what? Snore away? This is not theology but very overripe melodrama.
As usual with a Koukl book, there are some delightful ironies. The author goes on and on about “the death of truth,” and then reveals that he thinks the initial chapters of the book of Genesis are literally accurate history (58-59). And we all suffer from the wrong choice of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, even though an omniscient God would have known exactly how they would choose, they did not have knowledge of good and evil, and they had been placed cheek by jowl with the most powerful tempter known (rather like hiring a child molester for your babysitter). This is incoherent nonsense, quite apart from the other problems with Genesis as history, such as race (what races were Adam and Eve?), a lack of available women (who did Cain and Abel marry?), and the complete inability of anyone to fit this fairy tale into the known genetic and fossil history of humankind. Some Christians have tried to transform the story into an elegant allegory; I don’t agree, but at least they haven’t committed intellectual suicide. Koukl hasn’t just thrown reason and common sense out the window, he’s stepping off the edge of the roof trying to walk on the clouds.
There are the usual word games around “atheism,” and the traditional kick at Richard Dawkins; I hope Koukl lets Dawkins go to heaven in his world, since he’d be lost without him. He trips over his own shoelaces trying to answer Dawkins’ quip that Christians were atheists as well with regard to all the other gods invented by human beings, apparently not realizing that the Romans really did call Christians “atheists,” since they disbelieved in all the local gods who served as the representatives of the God on High in different cultures. This divine bureaucracy would make far better sense than having One God send a representative to one small area of the world, a clumsy move that left most of the world ignorant of the supposed Good News for centuries. But “subtle” is not in the author’s vocabulary; he thinks, with C. S. Lewis, that we are actually the slaves of his pinchbeck deity and need do no more that shut up and obey.
So who made God, then? Koukl says it’s unfair to ask, because “the concern only applies to things that begin to exist.” Then he complains that atheists ignore this. I’m not sure he’d like the attention, since if there is such a thing as a thing that doesn’t ever begin to exist, how is it there? Something that has never begun to exist is imaginary. Or perhaps the universe was the thing that never began to exist? And what about the thousand and one gods he’s skipped over? (p. 92).
He says that everyone “must accede to an ultimate starting point for everything” – which is the very thing he’s failing to accede to. He thinks there must be something “outside” that can decide to make the world. Why should it, if it knows the entire course of history in advance? What would be the point? Did god create the world just to be able to stock up Hell with large numbers of "sinners" who would be tortured forever? What kind of a god would that be?
I am not a very good person, but not even a middling bad person like myself would torture their enemies for all time for doing what I always knew they would do if I created them. If this is god, he should be locked into his own Hell, alone, and the door nailed shut. I absolutely decline to worship anything that is not even as moral as I am.
Needless to say, Koukl disbelieves in evolution or that evolution could produce new and sophisticated powers, for instance the power that some organisms have to sense the magnetic field of the earth (p 99). Unfortunately for him, there has been a startling case of this very recently: some forms of mould from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site have apparently evolved the ability to draw on radioactivity for part of their energy, actively seeking areas of high radioactivity and immune to the harm they cause to other beings. In other words, in less than thirty years evolution has given this mould a power that seems entirely absent from any other living thing. Or should we imagine that God came down and twiddled with the DNA? An odd place for a miracle, surely.
Koukl does just as poorly with the problem of evil. “Universal moral obligations, however, require a transcendent basis or grounding.” (p. 124) This is flatly false. Our morals are rooted in our sense of fairness, which is not even confined to the human race but shared by some of the higher animals. This is not “transcendent,” but an inherited trait that evolved because possessing it makes social life possible and thus improves the survival chances for a species, for animals and for human beings alike.
Ironically, our fantasies of gods are also rooted in our sense of fairness. Always, some evildoers live happy lives and seem to get away with everything, or some wickedness is never traced to its perpetrator. How convenient it would be if there were a Super Everything creature watching over us and keeping score, so to speak? And if all the scores were settled in a far off inaccessible land, such as the afterlife, who could ever know if they were settled or not?
Amusing – but Koukl’s follies are depressing as well. They make it clear that Christianity is grounded in the denigration of human beings: “The world is broken. This we all know. We are broken, too. This we also know. What we do not all realize, though, is that we are the problem. It was our brokenness that fractured the world to begin with.” (p. 165) He’s given human actions co-equality in effect with those of his god. If the world were once perfect, why did this incompetent god allow it to be fractured by creating creatures whom he knew in advance would do just that? It’s a very squalid spectacle compared with, say, the ancient Chinese ideal of the “Great Peace” (taiping) or even Buddhist universal enlightenment. But it's just what we would expect from a people who lived in a world with crucifixions and gladiatorial games.
It is also very depressing to see Koukl scramble to make excuses for the various butcheries that are chronicled in the Old Testament. Despite his demand that we read the Bible “normally,” he is intent on wriggling around the passages that give him pause (p. 191). Does the Bible say everyone was slaughtered? Call it military trash talk. Besides, the Canaanites deserved it! There is no explanation why god didn’t just flash a few miracles at them and convince them they were worshipping in the wrong way. Instead, he wanted a massacre (pp. 194-195). That’s hardly godly. The god of the Bible even accepts human sacrifices, and not just ones that are cancelled at the last minute (see for instance Judges 11: 29-40, one of several passages).
Remember, this is the Omnipotent All Is. And he didn’t choose a spectacular demonstration of his All Is Ism. Only blood, sometimes lots of blood, would satisfy him, like a petty human dictator, not at all like someone who really had divine powers. You cannot write off the violence by saying “God hates sin.” The Christian god has a literally infinite range and scope of responses available to him. That he chose to engage in massive violence says a lot – not about him, for he does not exist, but about the people trying to deal with some rough spots in their country’s history. “We killed all those people? Oh well god told us to, and besides, what else could be done?” (198).
And then slavery. He makes the standard claim that Christians were responsible for the abolition of slavery, which does not account for the over fifteen hundred years that they waited before doing anything. When human rights became a prominent issue, some Christians did finally discover that slavery was bad, but many calling themselves Christians did not. And the Bible passages remained. People are referred to as being passed down as family property, “to receive as a possession.” A person who is a possession is a slave, period (Lev. 25:46).
He remarks that kidnapping, murder, and rape were capital crimes. They were in the Old South, too, but slaves do not enjoy human rights or status. This is an evasion. (201) If “slavery was a terrible sin against God,” then Christians tolerated that “terrible sin” for literally centuries. (205)
There’s an old saw that states a fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in seven years, and it describes the questioning part of this book very well. But I believe the true “tell” is that Koukl is consistently terrified of losing the initiative. He seems aware that his own set of shallow and shopworn answers is so vulnerable that it can never survive its turn under the spotlight – so attack, attack, attack and put the most vulnerable parts at the back. These are the chapters on abortion, gender, and sexuality, which must be left to another time and another review. I’m sure he’ll be back with more; no one is listening, and Heaven is empty, but the apologetic market is still a place where a sophist can earn his keep, Socrates forgive us.
You see, Gregory Koukl lives in a fantasy world. He is convinced that all around us are shadowy evil spirits who deploy “age-old schemes that originated in the invisible realm” and “a foundational lie that goes back to the very beginning” (p. 48). He’s seeing things in “unseen realms”: “We live in a world made by an invisible Being, and this world is thick with invisible things” (p. 50). (Are any of them in the room with us right now? the doctor usually says at this point.) The devil “holds people captive to do his bidding by trickery and deceit, blinding the minds of those who are perishing, keeping them from coming to their senses and seeing the world the way it really is” (52). And God does… what? Snore away? This is not theology but very overripe melodrama.
As usual with a Koukl book, there are some delightful ironies. The author goes on and on about “the death of truth,” and then reveals that he thinks the initial chapters of the book of Genesis are literally accurate history (58-59). And we all suffer from the wrong choice of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, even though an omniscient God would have known exactly how they would choose, they did not have knowledge of good and evil, and they had been placed cheek by jowl with the most powerful tempter known (rather like hiring a child molester for your babysitter). This is incoherent nonsense, quite apart from the other problems with Genesis as history, such as race (what races were Adam and Eve?), a lack of available women (who did Cain and Abel marry?), and the complete inability of anyone to fit this fairy tale into the known genetic and fossil history of humankind. Some Christians have tried to transform the story into an elegant allegory; I don’t agree, but at least they haven’t committed intellectual suicide. Koukl hasn’t just thrown reason and common sense out the window, he’s stepping off the edge of the roof trying to walk on the clouds.
There are the usual word games around “atheism,” and the traditional kick at Richard Dawkins; I hope Koukl lets Dawkins go to heaven in his world, since he’d be lost without him. He trips over his own shoelaces trying to answer Dawkins’ quip that Christians were atheists as well with regard to all the other gods invented by human beings, apparently not realizing that the Romans really did call Christians “atheists,” since they disbelieved in all the local gods who served as the representatives of the God on High in different cultures. This divine bureaucracy would make far better sense than having One God send a representative to one small area of the world, a clumsy move that left most of the world ignorant of the supposed Good News for centuries. But “subtle” is not in the author’s vocabulary; he thinks, with C. S. Lewis, that we are actually the slaves of his pinchbeck deity and need do no more that shut up and obey.
So who made God, then? Koukl says it’s unfair to ask, because “the concern only applies to things that begin to exist.” Then he complains that atheists ignore this. I’m not sure he’d like the attention, since if there is such a thing as a thing that doesn’t ever begin to exist, how is it there? Something that has never begun to exist is imaginary. Or perhaps the universe was the thing that never began to exist? And what about the thousand and one gods he’s skipped over? (p. 92).
He says that everyone “must accede to an ultimate starting point for everything” – which is the very thing he’s failing to accede to. He thinks there must be something “outside” that can decide to make the world. Why should it, if it knows the entire course of history in advance? What would be the point? Did god create the world just to be able to stock up Hell with large numbers of "sinners" who would be tortured forever? What kind of a god would that be?
I am not a very good person, but not even a middling bad person like myself would torture their enemies for all time for doing what I always knew they would do if I created them. If this is god, he should be locked into his own Hell, alone, and the door nailed shut. I absolutely decline to worship anything that is not even as moral as I am.
Needless to say, Koukl disbelieves in evolution or that evolution could produce new and sophisticated powers, for instance the power that some organisms have to sense the magnetic field of the earth (p 99). Unfortunately for him, there has been a startling case of this very recently: some forms of mould from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site have apparently evolved the ability to draw on radioactivity for part of their energy, actively seeking areas of high radioactivity and immune to the harm they cause to other beings. In other words, in less than thirty years evolution has given this mould a power that seems entirely absent from any other living thing. Or should we imagine that God came down and twiddled with the DNA? An odd place for a miracle, surely.
Koukl does just as poorly with the problem of evil. “Universal moral obligations, however, require a transcendent basis or grounding.” (p. 124) This is flatly false. Our morals are rooted in our sense of fairness, which is not even confined to the human race but shared by some of the higher animals. This is not “transcendent,” but an inherited trait that evolved because possessing it makes social life possible and thus improves the survival chances for a species, for animals and for human beings alike.
Ironically, our fantasies of gods are also rooted in our sense of fairness. Always, some evildoers live happy lives and seem to get away with everything, or some wickedness is never traced to its perpetrator. How convenient it would be if there were a Super Everything creature watching over us and keeping score, so to speak? And if all the scores were settled in a far off inaccessible land, such as the afterlife, who could ever know if they were settled or not?
Amusing – but Koukl’s follies are depressing as well. They make it clear that Christianity is grounded in the denigration of human beings: “The world is broken. This we all know. We are broken, too. This we also know. What we do not all realize, though, is that we are the problem. It was our brokenness that fractured the world to begin with.” (p. 165) He’s given human actions co-equality in effect with those of his god. If the world were once perfect, why did this incompetent god allow it to be fractured by creating creatures whom he knew in advance would do just that? It’s a very squalid spectacle compared with, say, the ancient Chinese ideal of the “Great Peace” (taiping) or even Buddhist universal enlightenment. But it's just what we would expect from a people who lived in a world with crucifixions and gladiatorial games.
It is also very depressing to see Koukl scramble to make excuses for the various butcheries that are chronicled in the Old Testament. Despite his demand that we read the Bible “normally,” he is intent on wriggling around the passages that give him pause (p. 191). Does the Bible say everyone was slaughtered? Call it military trash talk. Besides, the Canaanites deserved it! There is no explanation why god didn’t just flash a few miracles at them and convince them they were worshipping in the wrong way. Instead, he wanted a massacre (pp. 194-195). That’s hardly godly. The god of the Bible even accepts human sacrifices, and not just ones that are cancelled at the last minute (see for instance Judges 11: 29-40, one of several passages).
Remember, this is the Omnipotent All Is. And he didn’t choose a spectacular demonstration of his All Is Ism. Only blood, sometimes lots of blood, would satisfy him, like a petty human dictator, not at all like someone who really had divine powers. You cannot write off the violence by saying “God hates sin.” The Christian god has a literally infinite range and scope of responses available to him. That he chose to engage in massive violence says a lot – not about him, for he does not exist, but about the people trying to deal with some rough spots in their country’s history. “We killed all those people? Oh well god told us to, and besides, what else could be done?” (198).
And then slavery. He makes the standard claim that Christians were responsible for the abolition of slavery, which does not account for the over fifteen hundred years that they waited before doing anything. When human rights became a prominent issue, some Christians did finally discover that slavery was bad, but many calling themselves Christians did not. And the Bible passages remained. People are referred to as being passed down as family property, “to receive as a possession.” A person who is a possession is a slave, period (Lev. 25:46).
He remarks that kidnapping, murder, and rape were capital crimes. They were in the Old South, too, but slaves do not enjoy human rights or status. This is an evasion. (201) If “slavery was a terrible sin against God,” then Christians tolerated that “terrible sin” for literally centuries. (205)
There’s an old saw that states a fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in seven years, and it describes the questioning part of this book very well. But I believe the true “tell” is that Koukl is consistently terrified of losing the initiative. He seems aware that his own set of shallow and shopworn answers is so vulnerable that it can never survive its turn under the spotlight – so attack, attack, attack and put the most vulnerable parts at the back. These are the chapters on abortion, gender, and sexuality, which must be left to another time and another review. I’m sure he’ll be back with more; no one is listening, and Heaven is empty, but the apologetic market is still a place where a sophist can earn his keep, Socrates forgive us.
November 29, 2025
Well structured, intriguing and engaging. Worth the read.
January 6, 2024
Today's "how-to" for answering challenges to the truth of who Jesus is, what he has done, and his truth. From the beginning (Genesis 3, "...did God really say..." there have been doubts put against God. The specifics change from time-to-time, and Street Smarts combines today's context to the method of asking questions. Gregory Koukl has advocated asking questions to engage in conversation and I agree - the way to engage a person and their positions is to first understand. Readers of Tactics will appreciate the review of Koukl's methods and current day applications, all readers will appreciate the example Q & A conversations that will respectfully draw out another's point of view and allow us to challenge those views like a good ambassador should. Highly recommended. Also recommended for skeptics to the Christian worldview, this book describes non-Christian world views and how they fall short, then how Christianity is the best explanation for the way things really are.
January 8, 2024
Did not finish.
Koukl is an incisive and logical thinker, and I respect his apologetics work. However, this book felt incredibly condescending, both to sympathetic reader and to the straw-man unbelievers it "takes down." As a Christian, pretty gross.
Uncharitable, unfeeling, pretentious. Do not recommend.
Koukl is an incisive and logical thinker, and I respect his apologetics work. However, this book felt incredibly condescending, both to sympathetic reader and to the straw-man unbelievers it "takes down." As a Christian, pretty gross.
Uncharitable, unfeeling, pretentious. Do not recommend.
December 16, 2025
Dr. Koukl has written a beautifully put together assemblage of Columbo tactics that can make debates less stressful. His advice and teaching have done wonders for many around the world. Asking the right questions can get you out of a tough spot or keep you out of the spotlight if someone is trying to berate you.
December 8, 2023
It strawmans atheists quite a bit.
February 8, 2024
1 Peter 3:15 With a Twist for Contentious Times
1 Peter 3:15 counsels aspiring Christian apologists “ . . . Always be prepared to give an ANSWER to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, (b)ut do this with gentleness and respect” (emphasis added). In his helpful and insightful book, “Street Smarts”, Greg Koukl offers a modified approach, recommending that we always be prepared to give a QUESTION instead.
Using the analogy of sowing versus reaping, or gardening versus harvesting as he prefers, Koukl argues convincingly that our job is to plant the seed of thoughtful reflection, leaving the harvest to the Holy Spirit. He also calls this putting a stone in another’s shoe, something that creates discomfort that demands attention.
Properly phrased and sequenced, questions can cause self-reflection resulting in greater clarity of both the listener’s own doubts and biases as well as the rationale for the apologist’s belief. They do so by engaging rather than confronting, thus achieving the “gentleness and respect” instruction from Peter. The alternative of answering directly can lead to a point-counterpoint defensive posture for both sides of the discourse. It can be more threatening than enlightening. Similar to the Socratic method, Koukl points out the frequency with which Christ Himself posed questions to His listeners to help them gain understanding.
Since his recommended approach is not how we typically are trained or inculcated to engage in debate or defense, Koukl offers numerous hypothetical dialogues to show how progressive, sincere questions might unfold to achieve the apologist’s aim, giving the reason for hope. His chosen examples run from basic theology (the existence of God, the problem of evil, the nature of Christ, and others) to controversies of faith versus contemporary secular issues (abortion, sexuality and others).
“Street Smarts” is very timely advice and preparation for Christians wishing to explain their Christianity without shutting down communication. Of course, some persons who are deeply entrenched in their worldviews might resent being asked questions when they mostly wish to engage confrontationally against the Christian worldview, but Koukl’s approach will work often, and it will help aspiring apologists to frame their own thinking and explanations. An excellent book and highly recommended.
1 Peter 3:15 counsels aspiring Christian apologists “ . . . Always be prepared to give an ANSWER to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, (b)ut do this with gentleness and respect” (emphasis added). In his helpful and insightful book, “Street Smarts”, Greg Koukl offers a modified approach, recommending that we always be prepared to give a QUESTION instead.
Using the analogy of sowing versus reaping, or gardening versus harvesting as he prefers, Koukl argues convincingly that our job is to plant the seed of thoughtful reflection, leaving the harvest to the Holy Spirit. He also calls this putting a stone in another’s shoe, something that creates discomfort that demands attention.
Properly phrased and sequenced, questions can cause self-reflection resulting in greater clarity of both the listener’s own doubts and biases as well as the rationale for the apologist’s belief. They do so by engaging rather than confronting, thus achieving the “gentleness and respect” instruction from Peter. The alternative of answering directly can lead to a point-counterpoint defensive posture for both sides of the discourse. It can be more threatening than enlightening. Similar to the Socratic method, Koukl points out the frequency with which Christ Himself posed questions to His listeners to help them gain understanding.
Since his recommended approach is not how we typically are trained or inculcated to engage in debate or defense, Koukl offers numerous hypothetical dialogues to show how progressive, sincere questions might unfold to achieve the apologist’s aim, giving the reason for hope. His chosen examples run from basic theology (the existence of God, the problem of evil, the nature of Christ, and others) to controversies of faith versus contemporary secular issues (abortion, sexuality and others).
“Street Smarts” is very timely advice and preparation for Christians wishing to explain their Christianity without shutting down communication. Of course, some persons who are deeply entrenched in their worldviews might resent being asked questions when they mostly wish to engage confrontationally against the Christian worldview, but Koukl’s approach will work often, and it will help aspiring apologists to frame their own thinking and explanations. An excellent book and highly recommended.
April 18, 2024
SCORE
3 Star = I feel neutral about this book. It wasn’t bad but also wasn’t great.
I read this for my apologetics class at church. I liked half of the book.
SUMMARY
PROS & CONS
Pros:
- Great tactical approach. I would definitely use them.
- Give general ideas of certain viewpoints in culture.
Cons:
- Some questionable theology on LGBT-related issues. And recently Koukl retracted his statements on pronouns saying he will use them in certain circumstances. I don't think it is just the behavior that is a sin, but also the thought life that is a sin as well (Jesus explained this with adultery Matthe 5:27-28)
- Although he gives general ideas of certain viewpoints in culture... it is very limiting. In our group, we listened to opposing views. The examples aren't bad but it's very unlikely someone is just going to agree with you at the end of it or that you would have the last say. It may not really work with someone who chooses not to think about these things (or is not in a good emotional/mental state to consider what you are saying) or has thought very long and hard about these things and may use logical fallacies to catch you off guard.
Not in the book:
- We watched the series alongside it and noticed that his satirical comments and attitude maybe wouldn't seen as graceful in all circumstances.
CONCLUSION
I liked the tactical approach more than the overviews on certain ideologies. I probably would have liked Tactics more, but already read and taken notes on this book.
3 Star = I feel neutral about this book. It wasn’t bad but also wasn’t great.
I read this for my apologetics class at church. I liked half of the book.
SUMMARY
PROS & CONS
Pros:
- Great tactical approach. I would definitely use them.
- Give general ideas of certain viewpoints in culture.
Cons:
- Some questionable theology on LGBT-related issues. And recently Koukl retracted his statements on pronouns saying he will use them in certain circumstances. I don't think it is just the behavior that is a sin, but also the thought life that is a sin as well (Jesus explained this with adultery Matthe 5:27-28)
- Although he gives general ideas of certain viewpoints in culture... it is very limiting. In our group, we listened to opposing views. The examples aren't bad but it's very unlikely someone is just going to agree with you at the end of it or that you would have the last say. It may not really work with someone who chooses not to think about these things (or is not in a good emotional/mental state to consider what you are saying) or has thought very long and hard about these things and may use logical fallacies to catch you off guard.
Not in the book:
- We watched the series alongside it and noticed that his satirical comments and attitude maybe wouldn't seen as graceful in all circumstances.
CONCLUSION
I liked the tactical approach more than the overviews on certain ideologies. I probably would have liked Tactics more, but already read and taken notes on this book.
March 16, 2024
This book is a mixed bag. It's full of good advice and hubris for Christians. Greg Koukl makes plentiful use of the tu quoque fallacy, some strawman arguments, and imaginary conversations (some, or all, based in some previous experience).
Saving Grace: The author states near the beginning that however one uses this book (and Tactics) the goal isn't necessarily evangelism proper. He also brings up some interesting and helpful ways of thinking about arguing respectfully with someone with a different worldview. That leads into the next part.
I enjoyed Tactics by the same author, but I found this follow-up to it lacking and almost egotistical. When dealing with someone of a different worldview, the author takes a militant stance. It's perfectly understandable given many Christians do think they are fighting against spiritual powers and dangerous ways of thinking. Some of the arguments presented in this book are the same recycled arguments in other Christian apologetic works. This work is partially a rehashing of Tactics and other apologetical arguments.
Some of the arguments are good and scholarly, but some of the others are downright condescending. I understand Koukl isn't writing for the intellectual crowd, per se, but his arguments are elementary, at best; remedial, at worst. It's mostly for Christians who may argue with someone who (supposedly) may not have done their homework.
I appreciate Greg Koukl for his work, but this book doesn't stand much for what it tries to accomplish.
Saving Grace: The author states near the beginning that however one uses this book (and Tactics) the goal isn't necessarily evangelism proper. He also brings up some interesting and helpful ways of thinking about arguing respectfully with someone with a different worldview. That leads into the next part.
I enjoyed Tactics by the same author, but I found this follow-up to it lacking and almost egotistical. When dealing with someone of a different worldview, the author takes a militant stance. It's perfectly understandable given many Christians do think they are fighting against spiritual powers and dangerous ways of thinking. Some of the arguments presented in this book are the same recycled arguments in other Christian apologetic works. This work is partially a rehashing of Tactics and other apologetical arguments.
Some of the arguments are good and scholarly, but some of the others are downright condescending. I understand Koukl isn't writing for the intellectual crowd, per se, but his arguments are elementary, at best; remedial, at worst. It's mostly for Christians who may argue with someone who (supposedly) may not have done their homework.
I appreciate Greg Koukl for his work, but this book doesn't stand much for what it tries to accomplish.
July 24, 2024
Let me preface this review by saying that "Tactics" by Kokul is one of my favorite books. This builds on that book, but is a little bit of a different animal.
"Tactics" dealt mainly with the methodology of questioning other's beliefs. It was really helpful across the board because it dealt mainly with things that made for good argumentation: asking for clarification, asking good questions, looking for underlying assumptions behind views. A book that I would recommend for almost anyone.
"Street Smarts" is a little different. Here, Kokul writes to Christians not primarily about methodology, but about content. What are the major things you will disagree with people about and how do you address them more specifically. It works well paired with "Tactics"
I think my issue with "Street Smarts" is that it makes the conversations a little too wooden. And honestly, I can't fault him too much, there is a lot of content for him to pack into a little book. And he does say that you ought to tweak sample conversations according to your personality.
So it's helpful, it's got good points, but the sample conversations make me cringe just a little. It would easy for someone who disagreed with me to read the sample conversations and say "hey, I'd never put my point across like that."
But for all its faults, it is a pretty good reference point for a lot of current hot-button issues. Tactics felt a little more gracious, so if you used this books content with Tactics's method, I think you would benefit a lot. Which honestly, is probably what the author intended
"Tactics" dealt mainly with the methodology of questioning other's beliefs. It was really helpful across the board because it dealt mainly with things that made for good argumentation: asking for clarification, asking good questions, looking for underlying assumptions behind views. A book that I would recommend for almost anyone.
"Street Smarts" is a little different. Here, Kokul writes to Christians not primarily about methodology, but about content. What are the major things you will disagree with people about and how do you address them more specifically. It works well paired with "Tactics"
I think my issue with "Street Smarts" is that it makes the conversations a little too wooden. And honestly, I can't fault him too much, there is a lot of content for him to pack into a little book. And he does say that you ought to tweak sample conversations according to your personality.
So it's helpful, it's got good points, but the sample conversations make me cringe just a little. It would easy for someone who disagreed with me to read the sample conversations and say "hey, I'd never put my point across like that."
But for all its faults, it is a pretty good reference point for a lot of current hot-button issues. Tactics felt a little more gracious, so if you used this books content with Tactics's method, I think you would benefit a lot. Which honestly, is probably what the author intended
March 21, 2025
I appreciated Street Smarts: Engaging Conversations About Christianity for the author's practical and insightful approach to handling challenging conversations. The book emphasizes the power of asking thoughtful questions instead of simply stating your arguments. This allows you to remain in control and gently guide discussions constructively because, through questioning, you can better understand your interlocutor's viewpoint and encourage them to reconsider their position while taking your perspective into account. What stood out to me is how this method applies not only to evangelism but also enriches fruitful communication in many other areas of life.
I tested this approach myself by simply asking, "What do you mean by that?" I was genuinely surprised to discover how quickly this revealed weaknesses and vagueness in the other person's arguments. This straightforward question helped me gather deeper insights into their viewpoint and encouraged them to reflect more critically. Additionally, the dialogue examples provided throughout the book are truly invaluable, making the concepts easy to grasp and effectively implement.
I tested this approach myself by simply asking, "What do you mean by that?" I was genuinely surprised to discover how quickly this revealed weaknesses and vagueness in the other person's arguments. This straightforward question helped me gather deeper insights into their viewpoint and encouraged them to reflect more critically. Additionally, the dialogue examples provided throughout the book are truly invaluable, making the concepts easy to grasp and effectively implement.
October 16, 2024
This book is a powerful read for believers who want to have confidence in conversations about faith, but are unsure how to do that thoughtfully and with grace. By using the approach of asking questions to start and continue conversations, Street Smarts carefully and meticulously dissects objections to Christianity, provides succinct evidence for Christianity, unearths logical fallacies in opposing arguments, and offers sample dialogue that walks readers through a thoughtful debate, leaving the other side with a pebble in their shoe.
I highly recommend this book for readers like myself who need encouragement in the area of debate style conversation. Being raised in the Bible Belt in the southern US, this style of conversation is not one that I am used to, but I now feel more equipped to engage in it after reading this book.
I highly recommend this book for readers like myself who need encouragement in the area of debate style conversation. Being raised in the Bible Belt in the southern US, this style of conversation is not one that I am used to, but I now feel more equipped to engage in it after reading this book.
February 5, 2024
At first, I felt that this book was going to be a wonky and unstable book of what we think and how people would respond to Christian culture and thinking. As I continue to read, it began to sink in that Koukl certainly has had these conversations probably more than once.
It was refreshing and sometimes frustrating the hypothetical conversations that would take place in the book because it seemed unlikely and then it dawned on me, I was once there responding the same way the world did/does.
This book isn't going to solve all the problems with sharing the gospel and how to do it, but it at least opens the door to some very good and practical ways a Christian should carry themselves when talking about Jesus and the gospel.
It was refreshing and sometimes frustrating the hypothetical conversations that would take place in the book because it seemed unlikely and then it dawned on me, I was once there responding the same way the world did/does.
This book isn't going to solve all the problems with sharing the gospel and how to do it, but it at least opens the door to some very good and practical ways a Christian should carry themselves when talking about Jesus and the gospel.
February 29, 2024
This is another great book by Greg Koukl! Well worth it to read and learn from; perhaps, even study from or in a group. This book is, in essence, a follow-on to his TACTICS, although he goes into some better detail and much longer examples in order to gain a better understanding of the tactics involved in "putting a stone in someone's shoe" in order that they walk away from you thinking about what the two of you had spoken about...their salvation. Of course the purpose is to send them away with enough but not overwhelming them with too much information. While I believe you can read this book as a standalone, as he tries to touch on what he had spoken of in his book on TACTICS. But I also believe you could get far more out of both books.
November 10, 2024
If you are familiar with Greg Koukl, you more than likely know that this will not only be a fascinating read but it will be of great benefit. While our culture is constantly changing, it may seem difficult to engage and share truth. Greg shares what he called "Street Smarts" (another form of tactics) in engaging others when it comes to challenges about faith, God, and Christianity. Overall it is a great book and phenomenal resource. If there is any draw back, it might be the depth of the information that is shared. Truthly one could resist the arguments (or rather the discussions) he shares over and over gain to learn and glean from. This book encourages Christians to ask questions nor argue. That it is our job to share truth but also not our job to convince or make others believe.
May 21, 2024
Pretty high four-star rating. It could sometimes drift into feeling a little mechanistic/impersonal, though I am entirely confident this was not intentional. Also I felt like it maybe backed away a little too much from responsibility for evangelism. Like yes, certainly most of what most people are going to be doing is 'gardening.' But ultimately we sometimes have to go out of our comfort zone and be ready to actually share the Gospel rather than defend theism or Christian ethics or what have you. And again, I doubt he'd disagree. But sometimes it felt like it was drifting toward missing the forest for the trees.
In all, though, it's quite a quality book.
In all, though, it's quite a quality book.
March 20, 2024
Greg Koukl is my mentor. He doesn't know it because we've never met, but he is. I first discovered him on the "Bible Answer Man" podcast 20 years ago. I've read everything he's written, and I've listened to everything he's said. I'm a Koukl clone. The downside is, I'm running out of Kouklisms to discover. Street Smarts is well-worn territory for me. Still, if you're new to him, you'll enjoy it. Always sharp thinking.
April 22, 2024
While hardcore presuppositionalists may find some theological nits to pick, I really like Koukl's approach to evangelistic conversations. Humble and engaging, this book is very practical in how it seeks to encourage the believer to ask questions that strike at the heart of one's dismissal of biblical truth. This reads, however, as a sequel to Tactics; I would suggest reading that one before starting on Street Smarts.
June 24, 2024
If you've read Greg Koukl's "Tactics," this is a fantastic follow-on. It takes tactics to the next level by giving explanations and example conversations that he applies to the topics that are actually in play in the culture today. A great resource or study guide for a church group that I highly recommend.
Read
November 24, 2023A fantastic continuation of an instant classic
Greg koukl has done a wonderful job in giving us some great tools in our struggles against culture. His tactics are practical and easy to utilize. I'd definitely recommend both this book and "Tactics" to any and every Christian.
Greg koukl has done a wonderful job in giving us some great tools in our struggles against culture. His tactics are practical and easy to utilize. I'd definitely recommend both this book and "Tactics" to any and every Christian.
January 17, 2024
Author Gregory Koukl expands on his book Tactics by giving more examples of how to defend Christian beliefs through questions. In this book, he has chapters that focus on particular subjects and supplies sample dialogues that readers can modify for their own conversations with skeptics.
February 8, 2024
Excellent thought process
I appreciate his clear and reasonable thought process and the helpful conversation examples. Greg has given us a wealth of information to use in our conversations.
I appreciate his clear and reasonable thought process and the helpful conversation examples. Greg has given us a wealth of information to use in our conversations.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews