A recent op-ed in USA Today came from what most people would think was an unexpected source. Kirsten Powers asked, “Will the liberal thought police come for you?” She spent most of her adult life as an atheist, worked in the Clinton administration, and often espouses liberal positions on most social and political issues. But she also has had a conversion experience and now refers to herself as an “orthodox Christian.”

Regardless of where she now stands politically or theologically, she is deeply concerned with the fact we seem to be slipping into what she calls “the Dark Ages, Part II.” This time, she says, the persecutors are the so-called liberals.

She provides many examples. David and Jason Benham had their HGTV show cancelled because of some of their comments on a Christian talk show. Kirsten Powers ridicules the TV producers who essentially were saying that “people cannot have a house-flipping show unless they believe and say the right thing in their life off the set.”

She goes on to talk about a number of speakers invited to various university commencements who were forced to withdraw. In a previous commentary, I provided a short list of those who were dropped or decided to withdraw. Kirsten Powers adds a few more to this list.

She also sees some significant contradictions. Ayann Hirsi Ali was not allowed to speak at Brandeis University because she criticizes radical Islam. On the other hand, Bill Maher calls God a “psychotic mass murderer.” There are no boycotts of his HBO show.

A professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara attacked a pro-life teen holding an anti-abortion poster in a free speech zone. She was charged with theft, battery, and vandalism. She is unrepentant but still has her job. However, the CEO of Mozilla was forced out of his job because he gave a donation to Proposition 8 in California.

I applaud Kirsten Powers for reminding us of the danger of the liberal thought police.

Is it possible to end extreme poverty within 75 years? If you said no, you are in good company. When the Barna Group asked this of Americans, 70 percent did not believe we could end poverty before the end of this century.

They also asked those same people if they thought world poverty had increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Three fourths of them thought it was worse and another 17 percent thought it stayed the same. Only 7 percent thought it decreased.

This is a good example of where the majority of Americans are wrong. Scott Todd in his book, Hope Rising, documents the success we have had in reducing extreme poverty around the world. In 1981, 52 percent of the developing world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Today that number is 21 percent.

On my radio program he reminded us that we used to say that 40,000 children die each day from preventable causes. Today that number is down to 18,000. As he said, that number is still a terrible statistic but it does show that we can make a significant impact on extreme poverty. That is why the subtitle of his book is “How Christians can end extreme poverty in this generation.”

His goal is to free us from the tyranny of low expectations. We aren’t going to reduce poverty around the world if we don’t believe our efforts are going to make any difference. He believes we need three things: a vision, a plan, and courage. His book provides the vision and sets forth some of the strategy we need to have an effective plan. The courage part is up to us.

This is also important for those we want to help. Scott Todd serves as the Senior Vice President for Global Advocacy at Compassion International. He understands that children they work with also need a vision and a plan. Children in poverty aren’t thinking about what profession they will pursue when they are adults. They are merely trying to get through the day. Feeding them and giving them medical attention allows them to have a vision and put together a plan for their future.

His book gives lots of examples of what churches and individual Christians can do to end extreme poverty. Let’s get started.

If we are to be more effective in communicating biblical values and morality, we need to understand basic strategy. This week I have been talking about some of the themes in the book, Rules for Patriots by Steve Deace. He argues that we should “never accept the premise of your opponent’s argument.” He also instructs us to “never surrender the moral high ground.”

Today I would like to talk about one more tactic: “reverse the premise of your opponent’s argument, and use it against him.” This is what Shakespeare says in Hamlet to “hoist him from his own petard.”

Steve Deace says that Ronald Regan was a Jedi Master of this technique. During the 1984 presidential campaign, there was some debate about Reagan’s age. When it came up in the debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan responded with a simple line and a smile that he would not “make his opponent’s youth and inexperience an issue in this campaign.” Those of us watching the debate knew he had won the debate and the election with that famous line.

Another example comes from Reagan’s constant sparring with ABC White House Correspondent Sam Donaldson. He asked the president if all the blame for the recession rested with the Democrat-controlled Congress. He asked, “Mr. President, does any of the blame belong to you?” Without skipping a beat, Reagan replied, “Yes, because for many years I was a Democrat.”

Obviously with this tactic, there is a balance. On the one hand you don’t always want to avoid answering a question. Most of us are tired of politicians who never answer the question being asked. A serious question about theology or politics deserves a thoughtful answer.

On the other hand, we don’t always have to respond to every “gotcha question” someone throws at us where they are trying to force you to chase your own tail. Steve Deace also reminds us to do it in a winsome manner. D.L. Moody once said, “When you’re winsome, you win some.”

These last three days I have talked about few tactics that all us should learn so that we will be more effective in communicating our values and morality.

If we are to be more effective in communicating biblical values and morality, we need to understand basic strategy. Yesterday I talked about one of the themes in the book, Rules for Patriots by Steve Deace. He argues that we should “never accept the premise of your opponent’s argument.”

Another principle he talks about is for us to “never surrender the moral high ground.” His primary example is abortion. A nation that has killed over 50 million babies in the womb seems no closer to overturning court decisions that made this possible. He says that is because pro-lifers are not arguing about the sanctity of human life but instead are arguing about the quality of life.

He says we argue that all life is sacred but then pursue “legislation that doesn’t try to end child killing but seeks to put restrictions on it like waiting periods before killing your child.” This is where I have some disagreement. I recognize that given the restrictions established by the court, we can only do these small steps. The legislation passed by various states doesn’t end abortion but it has reduced it significantly.

Steve Deace is right that often we focus only on this legislation and often are guilty of what I talked about yesterday in accepting the premise of the pro-choice view based upon a utilitarian ethic.

Lots of people say they are pro-life with exceptions. Sometimes those exceptions are few. Other times they are many. It is hard for me to accept that position since I have done interviews with people who were those exceptions. They could have been aborted simply because they were conceived through rape or incest. It is impossible for me to look them in the eye and say anything other than “I am so grateful your mother didn’t abort you.”

There are many other examples we can use. The principle is simple. We should not abandon the moral high ground and compromise our principles.

If we are to be more effective in communicating biblical values and morality, we need to understand basic strategy. That is one of the themes in the book, Rules for Patriots by Steve Deace. The middle part of his book provides some needed coaching on how we can all be more effective in communicating and convincing.

One of his principles is that we should “never accept the premise of your opponent’s argument.” A premise is the assumption of an argument that is meant to justify a conclusion. A good example would be the pro-life debate. What happens if the premise of the argument is over “reproductive choice” rather than “sanctity of life? The pro-choice side is more likely to win.

This can be applied to various constitutional issues. As Christians we believe that God grants us rights. We have the right to call on Him (“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved). Therefore, government has the responsibility to protect religious freedom through the First Amendment as well as through other legislative acts. However, the premise of many in government is that government gives rights and thus has the right to take away or constrain certain rights. It all depends on the premise that is used to come to a conclusion.

God grants us the right to self-defense. Therefore, our government has the obligation to protect and enforce the Second Amendment. However, you can come to a much different conclusion if the debate is about whether individuals should own firearms.

Steve Deace was on one talk show where the debate was about how much more taxes should be levied on the rich. When it came time for him to speak, he asked a simple question. How many on the panel and in the studio audience got a job from a poor person? He noted that every job he had came from a rich person. That allowed him to focus the discussion on whether we should punitively punish people who produce jobs.

If we are to be effective in communicating biblical values and morality, we should never accept the premise of our opponent’s argument.