It seems to me, and I believe this is mostly where Newman goes, that dialogue/debate has its place in evangelism. That place is the generation of cognitive dissonance. Questions and appropriate banter can serve to establish the utter disconnect between what a person believers and reality. In fact, questions are often useful in this situation where other methods would utterly fail. Newman asserts that this method of Questioning for the purpose of establishing dissonance is that which is modeled by Jesus himself.

Once the dissonance is established, I think that a person needs to decide on his/her own that beliefs are unjustified/unconsidered/not worth clinging to. It is at this point that many (and I have been guilty of this) will try to convince an unbeliever by flawless Aristotelian logic that they have been wrong their whole lives and they need to swallow their pride and repent. Pride rarely bows to logic. If that decision is not a personal one, the individual has no compelling motivation to seek after a (potentially) life-altering shift in worldview.

My two cents…at the moment…for what it is worth…subject to change.

I also agree that rational apologetics are far more necessary and useful in the world of academia.

Two things to help clarify where I am coming from:

First, when I talk about the apologetics of love and speaking the truth in love, I am not talking about coming at Christianity from an emotional standpoint and talking only about things that make people feel warm and fuzzy. I think that often critical truth is ignored in that approach; therefore, I don’t think it’s very loving. I mean the full _agape_ sense of the word love, 1 Cor 13 love in all its depth. That’s a far cry from warm fuzzies. That love is strong and sacrificial and often speaks difficult truth.

Second, I think I failed to be clear enough about this in the post: I am not suggesting that we chuck logical reasoning in evangelism. Rather, I am suggesting that “argument” as I have defined it in the post (see paragraph 1 under “Incompatible Goals”) is not a beneficial method of communication in evangelism. I think that addressing people’s misperceptions about Christianity (it’s irrational, no evidential basis in reality, etc.) is part of “the dialogue and discussion… focused on… answering questions that arise in the journey,” which I mentioned at the end of the post. Some people will probably think I’m splitting hairs to say that “dialogue and discussion” are different from “argumentation,” but again, I think there is a critical difference in: 1) goals and motivations and 2) the verbal and nonverbal communication that occurs during the discussion. One difference (among many, in my opinion) is that “argumentation” as I have defined it says “Here are three reasons why your viewpoint is wrong,” whereas a discipleship-oriented discussion says, “Here are some reasons and some evidence that have helped me to overcome the same objections I hear you voicing – perhaps they will help you, too.”

Some people might say, “That sounds weak! You have the Truth. You’re right and they’re wrong, so tell it like it is.” To which I would respond, “You have the Truth. It doesn’t need to be laced with rhetorical arrogance. Be humble and allow the Spirit to work.”

So I’m all for logical reasoning. I just think it needs to be full of agape, correctly motivated, and employed at the right time.