Sacred Tribes Journal on Ethics of Evangelism and Predatory Proselytism for Kindle

As I've mentioned previously, the next issue of Sacred Tribes Journal Vol. 8, no. 1 (Fall 2013) is devoted to an exploration of the ethics of evangelism. This is one of the best issues we've done, addressing a neglected topic from multiple perspectives, including an Evangelical exposition of the subject, a critique by a Hindu writer, responses by two Evangelicals, a review of Elmer Thiessen's The Ethics of Evangelism, and an excerpt of Myron Penner's The End of Apologetics with consideration of the politics and violence of apologetics in certain contexts.

I am working with some folks to address technical issues related to an update on the website so the new issue can be uploaded there. In the meantime, I have created an electronic version for Kindle.  Unfortunately, Amazon will not allow the option to offer the book for free, so I selected the minimum price of $.99US. So the Kindle book will sell for that price to interested individuals, and the journal edition at the STJ website will be free.

Please help share this in your network among Evangelicals, Hindus, Pagans and others who may be interested in a great conversation on this topic. I would be happy to make the PDF file available upon request for those who do not want to purchase the Kindle version.

I'll post a link to the STJ website piece when it is uploaded and published.

*Update Nov. 11: This edition is now available on the STJ website.

Are Mormons Christian?: Evangelicals, Modernity, and Cognitive, Propositional Definitions

 

There is a saying frequently attributed to a Chinese proverb: "If you want to know what water is like don't ask a fish." Regardless of the source the idea behind it is true: when someone is too familiar with their surroundings it becomes a blind spot that so influences their perspective that they aren't aware of it. It simply becomes something that is taken for granted. This is the case with Evangelicals and modernity. As Myron Bradley Penner argues in his new book on apologetics, modernity influences Evangelical assumptions on apologetics, theology, and as I will note in this post, it is also what is behind Evangelical definitions of Christianity that then serve as the backdrop for a major sticking point in Evangelical-Mormon dialogue.

I am currently reading and enjoying The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context (Baker Academic, 2013), by Myron Penner. The main thesis the author develops is that Evangelical apologetic approaches of whatever type are based upon the assumptions of modernity and its perspectives on reason. In particular, Penner states that, "In the modern philosophical paradigm, then, reason forms what I will call the 'objective-universal-neutral complex' (OUNCE)" (32). Penner identifies these features of reason in modernity in distinction to premodern views wherein, "reason is internal to (and possessed only by) human beings in a way that is universal, objective, and neutral" (32). Given these assumptions, apologists like William Lane Craig, and many conservative Evangelical theologians, present arguments, evidence, and theological propositions in ways that conform to the assumptions of modernity in regards to reason and epistemological justifications of belief. Penner takes issue with these assumptions and finds them far more secular than Evangelicals assume in the name of reason and its alleged objectivity and neutrality.

As Penner goes further in his description of Evangelicalism and modernity, he makes the interesting observation that, for  many (most?) conservative Evangelicals, "What is essential to being a Christian is an objective event: the cognitive acceptance (belief) of specific propositions (doctrines)" (36). While Penner explores this in relation to Evangelical apologetics, and to a lesser extent theology (after all, apologetics is a branch of theology), I want to consider this in relation to Evangelical-Mormon dialogue.

You don't have to search for or read much in dialogue and conversations between Evangelicals and Mormons to find the question "Are Mormons Christian?" raised by concerned Mormons. Evangelicals usually respond in the negative, and with certain historic, creedal, and doctrinal assumptions providing the foundation for that response. Mormons are naturally offended by this idea, as they have a different set of assumptions, with the idea that Mormons believe in and follow Christ, therefore they should be considered Christians. 

As Evangelicals and Mormons pass each other like two ships in the night on this topic I would note that members of both groups are missing an important element in exactly why Evangelicals would answer this question negatively. It goes beyond historic creeds and doctrines to some underlying philosophical assumptions. Evangelicals have so imbibed at the well of modernity and its philosophical assumptions that for them, as Penner notes, "What is essential to being a Christian is an objective event: the cognitive acceptance (belief) of specific propositions (doctrines)." This means that while Evangelicals connect these propositions to a relationship with Christ, even so, the cognitive acceptance of certain specific propositions are primary in their definition of what it means to be a Christian. The assumptions of modernity have become so intertwined with Evangelical thinking that, like the fish in water that knows nothing else other than its daily experience of its environment, that Evangelicals may not be aware of the extent to which these modernist assumptions impact not only its apologetics and theology, but also its ways of relating to those of other religions, as well as the formation of perceptions by those of other religions because of the views Evangelicals have of them that are shaped in part by the assumptions of modernity.

My friend and colleague at the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, Charles Randall Paul, once shared his observation that Evangelicals are the scientists and philosophers of their religion. I agreed with his assessment, and made my own observation that Mormons are the performers and artists of their religion. We certainly approach our religious pathways very differently. But the more I reflect on the "scientists and science of Evangelicalism" the more I realize how modernity has impacted us, even in the way in which we define what it means to be a Christian and relate our message to those in other religions.

Maybe it's time for Evangelical fish to jump out of the bowl and look around for a bit.

Myron Penner and "Apologetic Violence"

I just became aware of a forthcoming book by Myron Bradley Penner, The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context (Baker Academic, 2013). The book's description from Amazon reads:

The modern apologetic enterprise, according to Myron Penner, is no longer valid. It tends toward an unbiblical and unchristian form of Christian witness and does not have the ability to attest truthfully to Christ in our postmodern context. In fact, Christians need an entirely new way of conceiving the apologetic task.

This provocative text critiques modern apologetic efforts and offers a concept of faithful Christian witness that is characterized by love and grounded in God's revelation. Penner seeks to reorient the discussion of Christian belief, change a well-entrenched vocabulary that no longer works, and contextualize the enterprise of apologetics for a postmodern generation.

The book caught my eye given an interview with the author by Peter Enns at his blog. One section of the interview is particularly striking in one section where the author discusses the idea of "apologetic violence." When this happens on a personal level, Penner defines this as "apologetic arguments [that] are used to treat people badly...When they are used to demean, ridicule, show-up, or hurt another person in any way, I call that a form of violence."

The term apologetic violence may push the issue too far, and I'm more comfortable with a term like "predatory apologetics," but the idea is the same and I agree with his basic premise. In my view Evangelicals engage in apologetic violence, no matter how well meaning and "evangelistic," when they engage in apologetic argument or doctrine over person, or when they engage in identity contestation through confrontational "preaching" in the sacred spaces of others, whether among Mormons at General Conference and various  pageants, or among Muslims at the annual Arab American International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. Instead, Penner offers an alternative, a form of apologetichs which he calls “person-preserving” and that "involves Gabriel Marcel’s concept of sympathy, which propounds a fundamental concern with others as persons, not things."

Penner also discusses apologetic violence on a social level, such as

when Christian apologetic practice merely reinforces and defends a given set of power relations operative within an unjust social structure. We then overlook real people and proclaim to them the “truths” of the gospel packaged in “universal” concepts and categories (as well as practices) to which they cannot relate in any personal way and which have often played some role in their mistreatment or exploitation.

I am sensitive to this as well, and in some of my conversations with Pagans I have been reminded that this may also be playing out among Evangelicals in regard to minority religions in America.

Regardless of whether readers agree with Penner's overall thesis, his forthcoming book includes elements that sound tantalizing and worthy of thought by reflective Evangelicals.

Neglected Aspects of a Key Apologetic Text

Today I watched a video accompanying a new study material on multi-faith engagement which at one point included a quotation from the New Testament in the form of 1 Peter 3:15. The verse is included in the image accompanying this post. As I watched the video and read this passage once again, a few new observations came to me, included below with a few comments.

This passage is frequently cited by Evangelicals interested in apologetics, both in general contexts and in interreligious ones as well. This is because the Greek word translated "answer" in English is where the term apologetics in theology is frequently connected to, making this a primary "go to" passage on the topic. However, a few additional elements need to be considered.

It should be noted that this graphic, taken from a prominent Evangelical apologetics organization, is missing the remainder of the verse, which reads in the NIV translation: "But do this with gentleness and respect." Unfortunately, apologetics is often associated with an aggressive form of engagement that is missing, or at least perceived as missing, these two important elements. I find it interesting that the apologetics organization that produced this image omitted the latter part of the verse, for whatever reasons. Evangelicals shouldn't do the same in their practice of it. Our answer for our hope needs to incorporate gentleness and respect, even for those religious traditions that Evangelicals don't like. This is in keeping with Jesus' call to love our neighbors, as well as our enemies.

But today the element that stood out for me most in this passage was the part that says Christians are to give an answer for their hope "to everyone who asks you." Notice that Christians are to share in this capacity when asked, when the invitation is extended as to why we embrace the way of Jesus. The passage doesn't tell us to provide an answer for those who aren't asking, or for those who aren't interested.

Finally and related to this, in the context of the passage, the author is arguing that when one's Christian lifestyle in the way of Jesus leads to questions, then we should be prepared to given\ an answer. In other words, this apologetic involves a relational element and is not merely an evidential presentation void of this important context. This means we have to earn the right to be heard through a lifestyle that emulates Christ.

These thoughts aren't terribly new, as my colleagues have been discussing "dialogical apologetics," "relational apologetics," "humble apologetics," and "missional apologetics." But in my view the elements discussed above deserve greater reflection by a larger number of Evangelicals. 

Mikel Neumann Interview: The Incarnational Ministry of Jesus: An Alternative to Traditional Apologetic Approaches

Dr. Mikel Neumann is associate professor of intercultural studies at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon, where he supervises the intercultural internship program and teaches in doctoral- and master's-level intercultural programs. He served as a church-planting missionary for twenty-five years in Madagasdcar under the auspices of CBInternational. Dr. Neumann was the missionary scholar-in-residence at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, Illinois (1995-1996), where the researched the intercultural dimension of small group ministries. His research took him to Chicago, Caraas, Bombay, Accra, and Moscow. His book Home Groups for Urban Culture was published by William Carey and the Billy Graham Center in 1999. He has degrees from Western Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary (M.A. and D.Miss.). He is an international resource consultant with CBInternational, and this ministry has taken him to thirty-five nations to teach, encourage, and help local people.

Morehead's Musings: Mikel, thank you for agreeing to respond to a few questions about your chapter in Encountering New Religious Movements, and related issues. The title of your chapter is "The Incarnational Ministry of Jesus." Christians are familiar with the doctrine of the incarnation, but can you tell us how you define the "incarnational ministry" of Jesus and what this means?

Mikel Neumann: The idea incarnational ministry goes back to the fact that Jesus adapted himself to humans. He became one. That is the most radical adaptation in the universe known to humans. The example then, is for us to adapt to our hearers. The burden is on us to communicate in such a way as to be understood. Let the message of the cross be communicated in both our lives and words. It is a simple idea yet not so simple in working it out because it touches every area of our lives.

MM: How was this type of ministry modeled by Jesus?

Mikel Neumann: He became human in space and time, identified as to family, tribe and nation. He lived among people and served them at their point of expressed need. He taught them in a way they understood. There are a number of examples in the gospel of Jesus communicating in different ways to different audiences, whether the religious leaders of Jerusalem, the common peoples of the Middle East, or his discussions with Gentiles.

MM: In your chapter you discuss definitions of ministry, or as you say "getting it right" in ministry, as whether people respond positively. Another definition of success often used by pragmatic evangelicals is counting the numbers of converts, another way of looking at a positive response. How do you define correct ministry, or whatever term we want to use, in relation to an incarnational ministry model as exemplified by Jesus?

Mikel Neumann: I would suggest that if through our lives, service, and finally, words we have opened people’s minds to the gospel message and it’s implication for them, we have succeeded. I’m not against counting people but that is not the primary success indicator.

MM: In your article you discuss relationships, levels of cultural interaction, and practical demonstrations by Jesus as aspects of his incarnational ministry. How is this applicable to cross-cultural missions approaches overseas, and how might it also be applicable to the West, particularly where the new religions and alternative spiritualities are concerned?

Mikel Neumann: Many people wiser than I have spoken of cultural interactions in cross-cultural situations. However, in dealing with new religions and alternative spiritualities we have a different situation. We still need to incarnate the gospel but we also must maintain our identity in Christ. Because many of these groups, particularly those related to the Christian tradition, are often aggressively evangelistic in nature and apologetic in approach we can find ourselves being led in a fruitless direction. Personal service to these people and our own spiritual pilgrimage by way of personal testimony may evidence more fruit.

MM: You also discuss the book of Acts, and contrast a traditional apologetic response with that of incarnational ministry. Can you summarize and contrast these for us?

Mikel Neumann: By traditional apologetic I mean giving a logical/philosophical reasoning as to why the Christian faith is correct or superior to another. While I see a lot of correction of false practice and belief in the new system it is directed to Christians. The incarnational ministry assumes the truth and serves people at their point of need, declaring the gospel truth in understandable ways.

MM: One of the most interesting parts of your article for me was your discussion of an apparent change in Paul's ministry as it developed. I think many of us hold Paul in such esteem that we forget that he didn't always have ministry figured out correctly, and that he was making mistakes and modifying his methods as he pursued missions in the first century. How do you see Paul becoming increasingly relational in his ministry with the Gentiles?

Mikel Neumann: Yes, and increasingly gentle. Immediately after his conversion he was the same fiery preacher he was before conversion (Acts 9:20ff) which as he became more and more powerful caused people to try and kill him. I take that to mean he was so much better at proving his point that the leaders realized the only way to stop him was to kill him. They were not convinced by his arguments. That is the problem with an “apologetic” approach. Later in his ministry we see his gentleness, especially in the epistles. The two approaches can work together but a incarnational spirit must precede any would-be apologetic.

MM: You propose an incarnational ministry approach to new religionists. This involves recognition of and interaction with various cultural levels and an incarnational application. Can you summarize the model you propose and tell us how various facets of incarnational ministry interact with the various levels of culture?

Mikel Neumann: I used the model that Dr. Donald K. Smith brings forth in his work, ­Creating Understanding. It’s a simple, yet useful, model for this approach. He uses an onion to demonstrate four levels of communication. The outside or most surface level, the onion skin, is the behavior level. This level encompasses speech, culture, non-verbal communication and other obvious interactions. Our works of service can be applied as incarnation at this level. A second, slightly deeper level is designated authority which subsumes both formal authorities (governments, religious books, etc.) and informal (charismatic leaders, peer pressure, etc.). Experience is a deep level of culture that is unique to each person. That is the level where testimony can be effective whereas apologetic really only works at the more surface authority level. Core values are the deepest level and those change only gradually over time. Peeling an onion causes a lot of grief and tears. The metaphor is apt as we seek to communicate with those we love and desire to see understand the gospel message.

MM: You conclude your chapter with a comparison of traditional apologetic approaches with incarnational approaches, and you illustrate this with a helpful chart. Can you describe the similarities between these approaches, and touch on the very real differences in terms of tendencies?

Mikel Neumann: I think the practical difference is one between winning a debate (apologetic) and winning a person (incarnational). The former brings forth a tendency to verbal interaction, the later causes the much more difficult effort toward involvement in a person’s life.

MM: How might we shift from approaches that are largely apologetic-based and move to a blending of incarnational ministry informed by cross-cultural missions and that of contextualized apologetics?

Mikel Neumann: The shift is already in place. Many colleges and seminaries are teaching these principles in their intercultural studies programs. That is a huge change over the years. Many theologians as well have had cross cultural experiences that have brought them understanding of incarnational approaches. The basic issue is one of caring for people enough to become their friends, spending time with them, to the point where our “words” will be heard. Then the gospel can be made plain. That is the goal.

MM: Mikel, thanks again for taking the time to answer these questions.

Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith Video: Professional Polish on a Counter-Cult Apologetic Misfire

The following was originally posted a week or so ago but was then removed due to the need to consider a request by evangelicals who produced the DVD in question to remove the post and to keep this video project secret until the mass distribution of the video to Latter-day Saints in March. At that time I removed the post and sent an inquiry to a Christian philosopher and ethicist asking his opinion on the request. He said in response, in part, that "I see no reason why their concern for secrecy is greater than your concern for justice" [among Latter-day Saints in the way in which we engage in ways of living and ministry among them that are ethical]. He continued and stated that "Being a Christian means conducting one's relationships, both inside and outside the church, in a virtuous and honorable way." Related to this, I am reviewing Hiebert, Shaw & Tienou's Understanding Folk Religion for an intensive course with Terry Muck next weekend, and in the Preface they describe their foundational assumptions for the book that are based on their commitment to the mission of God. In one of these guiding principles they state that "mission is about principles, not pragmatic answers," and remind us that "Christianity is about truth and righteousness, not only in the ends it seeks, but also the means it uses to achieve those ends." These considerations are relevant to my consideration of the request to maintain secrecy on this DVD project and after careful review I feel that it is appropriate to share my comments publicly on this DVD project for my readers, both evangelical and Latter-day Saint.





A few weeks ago I received a call from a friend in California who was inquiring about a new video he had heard of and he was asking for my opinion on its value. I told him I had not heard of it but was willing to review any information about it that he could pass along. I recently heard of this video again, the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith video, through a friend of mine in Utah and I was able to secure a copy. Tri-Grace Ministries is spearheading this project, and is engaged in a large-scale distibution campaign to LDS doorsteps as well as other distribution methods this month.

After contacting the individuals associated with this project to share my thoughts and concerns, and having given them an opportunity to respond, I thought I might pass along some reflections of mine which came to mind after I reviewed the video.

First, let me state that I appreciated the comments made at the beginning of the film concerning the love those associated with this project have both for traditional Christians and Mormons. I believe that they are sincere and have the best intentions in the production and distribution of this video.

Second, I appreciate the professional production values evident in this video. It is evident that great effort was made to ensure that the look of the film reflected the highest quality possible.

Third, let me state that I share with the video's producers a common desire to help traditional Christians understand Mormonism in contrast with traditional Christianity, and to share our testimony concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ through deed and words with members of the LDS Church. We simply happen to have substantial disagreements on the philosophy and methodology undergirding how these worthy goals should be accomplished.

With these positive considerations in mind please consider the following areas of critique:

1. The title, Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith, will be immediately perceived by Latter-day Saints as a false dichotomy. While evangelicals surely disagree on their understanding of both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, nevertheless, Latter-day Saints will be immediately put off by the notion that they must choose one versus the other when they feel they can maintain both in their proper place in their beliefs. Good communication skills requires that we try to determine how our message is understood by others from their perspective, and if we put ourselves in the shoes of the Latter-day Saints it is clear that the title will be perceived as dichotomous and confrontational.

2. In the beginning of the video the hosts introduce the persons of Jesus and Joseph Smith, and while Jesus is introduced in the most flattering of Christian terms and concepts, Joseph Smith is presented as a deceiver, a madman, or a prophet. Will Latter-day Saints receive these interpretive options positively? Certainly not, and this characterization merely compounds the problematic title of the video.

3. The video criticizes the founder and prophet of the LDS Church and in so doing threatens the sacred narrative of the Latter-day Saints as a foundational element of the video project itself. Scholars have long noted the importance of sacred narratives to individual and community identity, and when these narratives are threatened the usual reaction is defensiveness, not receptivity to the criticism or the critic.

4. The video approaches the subject matter primarily from the perspectives of doctrinal contrast between traditional Christian orthodoxy and heresy and apologetic refutation of historic claims of the LDS Church. Please note that this is a specifically evangelical framework reflecting evangelical concerns for biblical fidelity, rational certitude, and historical veracity. By contrast, Mormonism as a culture tends to emphasize praxis, ethics, and cultural identity and inclusion. Given these differing foundational frameworks for religion, evangelicals will feel as if this video communicates from the appropriate starting point, but this will be lost on Latter-day Saints who simply practice their religion from dramatically different vantage points. Thus, the basic foundation and approach of the video virtually guarantees that this project will miss not communicate to its target audience.

5. In terms of the apologetic orientation of the video, this involves the same types of arguments that evangelicals have been using for years. Australian scholar and former Mormon John Bracht made two observations relevant to this in his masters thesis on Mormonism in the 1980s reflecting on The Godmakers film. He stated in the introduction that evangelical apologetic critiques of Mormonism tend to “simply draw attention to Mormon theology in the most simplistic and sensationalist terms.” He went further and noted that even though The Godmakers was one of the most widely distributed apologetic critiques of Mormonism, worldwide membership in the LDS Church continued to grow, and despite widespread evangelical apologetics against Mormonism, “Mormon proselytizing efforts have not been appreciably affected.” While I have no doubt that some Mormons have been persuaded by apologetic approaches such as that exemplified by Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith, the numbers have not been great, and despite a long history of apologetic interaction with Mormon culture the effects have been minimal. Thus, it would seem that this new project promises little more than what has been offered apologetically for many years by evangelicals, and while it may make evangelicals feel better in they have defined and defended the boundaries of traditional Christian orthodoxy, among the Mormon people it does little and amounts more to an exercise in preaching to the evangelical choir.

6. The video suffers from something Terry Muck has referred to in his book on religious studies methodology as the "error of triumphalism." This refers to depictions of other religions as inadequate with an accompanying idealization of one's own religion. Muck provides an example of unflattering depictions of the shortcomings of Muhammad related to Islam, and then states that "these statements may all be true, but how one then uses this information can be devastating." Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith engages in this error in relation to Joseph Smith by discussing aspects of his life in the most unflattering of ways, going so far at one point as paralleling his polygamous activities with Warren Jeffs. Regardless of whether a sound historical case can be made for this ethical portrait of Smith, quite unsurprisingly the reaction of Latter-day Saints will be extremely negative and will provide yet another reason for the video not to accomplish its purposes.

7. The distribution methods for this video appear to be largely impersonal, through door-to-door distribution, and perhaps through mailings. If this is the case, the videos will likely be distributed without any context of relationships, friendship, interpersonal credibility, and trust, and as a result the videos will likely do little more than see the inside of thousands of trash cans in Latter-Day Saints homes.

Other criticisms should be considered but these serious shortcomings should suffice for critical reflection. With these in mind I can only come to the conclusion that while many evangelicals are putting great hope in this video as a major evangelistic and apologetic that will reach the Latter-day Saints, in all likelihood it will be yet another failed project.

For all of these reasons I feel that it is my responsibility to let churches, pastors, and Christians know that I do not support this project, and that I feel it will set back other efforts by evangelicals while alienating us further from the Mormon people. I must also let my Mormon friends and contacts know that I do not agree with this project and that it does not represent the attitudes and efforts of myself or like-minded colleagues. There are other more promising ways forward and they must be explored.

Apologetics as Dialogue

Philip Johnson's recent visit to the United States for the teaching of an intensive course began the first day with a concluding session for the prior semester's Apologetic Traditions course. This included a healthy supplementary reading packet of some good materials. One of the articles included in this packet was written by Keith Mascord of Moore Theological College in Australia on the topic of "Apologetics as Dialogue."

After a summary discussion of various approaches to apologetics the author turns to consideration of dialogical apologetics as developed by David K. Clark of Bethel Theological Seminary, but which has also been discussed by Graham Cole of Ridley College in Australia. This approach is understood as a "person-specific, multi-method approach" that differ from other apologetic approaches that tend to be "content-oriented."

Mascord provides an important qualification to this recommendation of dialogical apologetics by way of definitional considerations that avoids compromise situations among dialogue participants. To support the approach he is defining and advocating, Mascord quotes Alistair McGrath:

"It is both logically and practically possible for us, as Christians, to respect and revere worthy representatives of other traditions while still believing - on rational grounds - that some aspects of their world-view are simply mistaken."

McGrath concludes in this quotation by stating:

"Dialogue thus implies respect, not agreement, between parties - and, at best, a willingness to take the profound risk that the other person may be right and that recognition of this fact may lead to the changing of positions."

It is this latter aspect of dialogue that may pose the greatest challenges and perceptions of threat to the participants and observers of certain expressions of interreligious dialogue, such as the Mormon-evangelical dialogues on scholarly and popular levels.

I will quote the last few paragraphs of the article, and while this will make for a lengthy blog post, these ideas are worthy of reflection. Mascord writes:

"It is this sort of dialogue that I believe a Christian can and should be engaged in. Dialogue, understood in this way, can still be genuine dialogue, for a number of reasons. It is genuine in the sense that the Christian is open to being corrected and challenged, and this even though such dialogue proceeds from a basis fo firm conviction that what one believes as a Christian is true. Dialogue is also genuine in the sense that the Christian can learn and grow through the process. McGrath notes that significant doctrinal developments within Christian theology have often taken place in response to dialogue with those outside the Christian faith. He mentions the example of how dialogue with 'protest atheism' led to a rejection of the long held belief that God cannot suffer or experience pain.

"McGrath sums up the point:

Dialogue is one pressure to ensuring that [the] process of continual self-examination and reformation continues. It is a bulwark against complacency and laziness and a stimulus to return to the sources of faith rather than resting content in some currently acceptable interpretation of them.

"It is my contention that a fresh approach to understanding the work of apology is needed. This is not only so because the old debate between the various apologetic schools now seems somewhat dated, but also because the world we live in, and want to evangelize, has become increasingly pluralistic. The need to listen, the need to be caringly sensitive to those we speak with as we commend the gospel, and as we persuade people of its truth, is greater now than it has been for some time (perhaps since the time of the New Testament!).

"If we do not engage in 'dialogical' apologetics, we simply will not be heard or understood. Nor, I think, will we deserve a hearing if we are not willing to respect people enough to listen, as well as to speak."

This form of apologetics is challenging to various segments of evangelicalism, including those engaged in apologetics to new religions and in the context of religious pluralism, as well as those engaging post-modernity, but I believe it holds great promise.

I try to practice these ideas in my own work among the new religions and alternative spiritualities. Dialogical apologetics would seem ideally suited and especially needed in the post-Christendom, post-modern Western world. My hope is that more Christians will see the value of this approach and incorporate it in their missional endeavors.