As an ambassador I鈥檝e learned that everyday encounters are the bread and butter of my witness for Christ.

While giving a talk at a local Barnes & Noble, someone asked why it was necessary for him to believe in Jesus. He was Jewish, believed in God and was living a moral life. Those were the important things, it seemed 鈥� how you lived, not what you believed.

To him our message depicted a narrowminded God pitching people into hell because of an arcane detail of Christian theology. How should I answer?

Remember that the first responsibility of an ambassador is knowledge 鈥� an accurately informed message. What is our message?

One way to say it is, 鈥淚f you don鈥檛 believe in Jesus, you鈥檒l go to hell. If you do believe, you鈥檒l go to heaven.鈥�

That鈥檚 certainly true, as far as it goes. The problem is it鈥檚 not clear. Since it doesn鈥檛 give an accurate sense of why Jesus is necessary, it makes God sound petty.

So how do we fix this? Here鈥檚 how I responded to my Jewish questioner. I asked him two simple questions.

鈥淒o you think people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?鈥�

He thought for a moment. 鈥淲ell, since I鈥檓 a prosecuting attorney 鈥� yes.鈥�

鈥淪o do I,鈥� I agreed. 鈥淪econd question: Have you ever committed any moral crimes?鈥�

There was a slight pause. This was getting personal. 鈥淵es, I guess I have,鈥� he admitted.

鈥淪o have I,鈥� I confessed, agreeing with him again. 鈥淪o now we have this difficult situation, don鈥檛 we? We both believe those who commit moral crimes ought to be punished, and we both believe we鈥檝e committed moral crimes. Do you know what I call that? I call that bad news.鈥�

In less than 60 seconds I had accomplished a remarkable thing with this approach. I didn鈥檛 have to convince him he was a sinner. He was telling me. I didn鈥檛 have to convince him he deserved to be punished. He was telling me.

I was tapping into a deep intuition every person shares: knowledge of his own guilt. And I didn鈥檛 do it arrogantly or in an obnoxious, condescending way. I freely admitted I was in the same trouble he was.

Now that we agreed on the problem it was time to give the solution.

鈥淭his is where Jesus comes in,鈥� I explained.

鈥淲e both know we鈥檙e guilty. That鈥檚 the problem. So God offers a solution: a pardon, free of charge. But it鈥檚 on his terms, not ours. Jesus is God鈥檚 answer because he personally paid the penalty for us. He took the rap in our place. No one else has done that. Now we have a choice to make. We either take the pardon and go free, or refuse it and pay for our own crimes.鈥�

This approach reveals a very important sequence in making our message intelligible: First the bad news, then the good news.

There are other illustrations you could use to do this, but the sequence is critical. It鈥檚 the way any good doctor proceeds. And it was the consistent method used by the apostles. Take a look for yourself. In every one of the 13 times the gospel was preached in Acts, the disciples used the same approach.

Why is this technique important? Because it gives an accurate sense of why Jesus is necessary. It shows that God is not trivial, but merciful, not petty, but kind, graciously offering forgiveness to those who desperately need it.

Gregory Koukl (M.A. 鈥�06) is founder and president of Stand to Reason and an adjunct professor in 51萝莉鈥檚 Christian apologetics program. This article is adapted from a blog post at str.org.