LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Dialogue in Evangelism
A Paper Submitted to
the Faculty of the School of Divinity
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Education in Christian Leadership (Ed. D) Department of Christian Leadership and
Church Ministries
By
Mary Gracias
Lynchburg, Virginia
5/2022
Dialogue in Evangelism
1. Introduction
What does it mean to preach the gospel? Assuming for a moment that Christians could all
agree about the message that we are called to communicate, what actually is involved in
proclaiming it? How should we do it?
I realize of course that Christians do not always agree about some of the details of the
Christian gospel. A healthy reflection will presumably always continue in the church as to what
is essential to our message and what can be reformulated or expressed in varying ways. The
concern here is rather to explore how we might share that message, without thereby adding to
the literature on the proper contents of the gospel.
It is the writer's contention that the method of how we preach the gospel is a much
neglected subject. There are of course many advocates of different techniques in
communication, but little concern to go back to basics and ask some searching questions about
the nature of preaching itself.
What is Preaching?
Most of us have pre-set ideas as to what preaching is. We readily think of our usual
exposure to preaching in church, and, if we have reservations about that, we think of our
favourite preacher and perhaps the occasion when we ourselves were won to Christian
commitment. Of course, if contemporary preaching as it is practised up and down the land was
singularly effective in winning people to Christ, we probably would not bother to ask these
questions at all. However that is patently not the case. Western Europe has seen a steady
decline in Christian allegiance throughout this century, and now in the closing years of the
millennium we are being urged to redouble our efforts. 'A Decade of Evangelism' is under way,
being initiated by leaders of various denominations.
What then are we to do? Put more effort and more money into the ways we have so
often been doing things, which have by and large been met with such little success? A popular
student evangelist said recently that he had never known such a barren period in his ministry.
He had never found it so difficult to win an audience and never seen so few people ready to
make a response of faith in Christ.
He was able to demonstrate from surveys done over the past thirty years that Christian
belief in Britain was on a steady and dramatic decline. Questions such as 'Do you believe in
God? Do you pray? Do you read the Bible? Do you go to church?' and so on all showed a steep
decline in affirmative answers. Whatever has happened to the number of committed Christians
in Britain over that period, clearly the number of people who would nominally consider
themselves to be Christian has fallen dramatically. Neither does the population at large have
much in the way of residual knowledge about the Christian faith. Unlike the situation in
America, few people in Britain have attended Sunday School as children and they have learned
all too little about Christ in the State schools.
It is then in this context that we need to ask the questions as to whether we are doing the
right things or whether we need to change our approach. If we can be sure we are going about
things the right way, so well and good! Our Lord does not promise us success. We may well be
greeted with stubborn unbelief. Did he not raise the possibility that upon his return he would
not find any faith on earth? (Luke 18:8) Certainly, our task is to be faithful rather than
successful, but that does not excuse us from some thoughtful reflection as to what we are
doing. Indeed, it is part of the contention here that we are not actually being faithful in some of
the assumptions and practices we adopt.
2. Preaching in the New Testament
We need first of all to put to one side our immediate understanding of 'preaching',
conditioned by our various experiences of it, and ask what the word essentially means. In the
New Testament a variety of words are employed to convey the idea and there are numerous
English equivalents given in different translations, such as 'announce', 'publish', 'proclaim',
‘declare', or 'speak boldly'. The idea of preaching in itself does not carry the idea of a formal
setting, a large gathering, an utterance from a raised platform, or a monologue.
Christians who take their Bibles seriously will naturally turn to its pages for light in areas
of difficulty and confusion. If we want radically to rethink our strategy, then we must turn in
particular to the evangelism of the New Testament. We could for instance study the preaching
of Jesus, though some would say that his evangelism is necessarily unique. It is easier for us to
identify with the situation of the apostles, carrying their message about Christ to an unbelieving
world. Our concern then in this current exercise is to see what they did, looking at what was
happening rather than analyzing their message. The Acts, as its name implies, is a description of
their deeds and is our main account of their preaching method.
Proclaiming Jesus
Consider then the cluster of five verbs used by Luke to describe Paul at work at
Thessalonica. He tells us in Acts 17:2-4,that Paul was engaged in reasoning, explaining, proving,
proclaiming and persuading. Acts 17 verse 2 tells us that this was typical stuff: “As his custom
was ...” This was no novelty. He was not embarking on a new technique because of difficulties
he had had earlier. He was adopting his usual approach, and the exercise he was engaged in
was that of proclaiming Christ (verse 3).
Being a converted Jew, he first of all sought out the synagogue where he knew he would
find a ready audience, and on three successive Sabbaths he “reasoned with them”. Now others
have drawn attention to this phrase, but it seems to me that it continues to surprise us and we
fail to pursue its implications. The Greek word is actually dialegomai which Vine's Dictionary of
New Testament Words defines as “To think different things with oneself, to ponder, then to
dispute with others”. While the Greek prefix 'di-' means two or twice, 'dia-' as in diaphragm
means through or across. It carries the idea of a bridge between two positions. While most
translations in English use the word 'reason', it would be more helpful to say that Paul entered
into dialogue.
Inter-Faith Dialogue
Now the whole idea of dialogue is unpopular in some Christian circles because it is
thought to convey the idea of compromise. The word has usually been employed in terms of
'inter-faith' dialogue, where the impression has sometimes been conveyed that instead of
evangelizing those of other faiths, the object has been solely to learn from them, perhaps in an
attempt to evolve some new all-embracing system of belief that has taken the best ideas from
each participant. Such syncretism has been seen as the antidote to global pluralism, and
dialogue as the means of achieving it.
What is so special about inter-faith dialogue? I want to suggest – nothing! All our
dialogues are inter-faith. Just because a person doesn't believe in Christ does not mean he does
not believe in anything. He may adhere to a well-known identifiable system of beliefs, of which
there are a multitude, with new religions being founded every year, up to an estimated 800
since the beginning of this century! He may merely believe in himself, or luck, or a highly
personalized concoction of ideas, shaken or stirred according to his own individual taste. If he
has any capacity for thought, he cannot believe nothing. We never do dialogue with a blank.
But surely, I hear someone say, the key thing about inter-faith dialogue is the sensitivity
and respect for the other person's religion that should characterize our approach. Exactly. It
should always be like that in all our dialogues. It is always a good thing if we behave Christianly,
and in this particular area we have specific instructions, “Always be prepared to give an answer
to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with
gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15) We must speak the truth, yet do it in love (Ephesians
4:15).
We never enter into dialogue with systems of belief. Rather we dialogue with individual
people who hold certain beliefs that may be shaped by particular systems and assumptions. No
two Christians believe identical things entirely. Human nature is far more complicated than
that. Similarly no two non-Christians believe identical things if they are given an opportunity to
explore the depths of their hopes and aspirations. One of the really exciting things about a
group dialogue, say with a dozen English agnostics, is the way that in due course they will take
issue with each other, exposing the inadequacy of the assumptions and confidences they
embrace.
No, all our dialogues are ‘inter-faith’ and no-one goes into them naked. We carry our
convictions, and Christians enter such dialogue with an entirely reasonable prior commitment
to truth in general and the embodiment of truth revealed to the world in Christ Jesus in
particular. If he is the Truth, then all beliefs must be brought into line with that cornerstone.
The sort of dialogue that seeks for compromise and syncretism has no basis in the New
Testament or in the real world as we all know it to be. What possible chance is there of evolving
some universally acceptable pattern of belief for the world to embrace – one that will appeal to
atheists and agnostics, Hindus and Moslems, witches and anarchists, those who believe that
Jesus Christ is the only way to God and those who do not? The absurdity of the endeavour is
apparent. Mankind is groping around in the dark, and the crucial question is, “Has light from
outside shined, and if so where?”
Paul with the Jews
Clearly dialogues aiming at syncretism are a very different kind of inter-faith dialogue
from that entered into by Paul with the Jews in their synagogues.
No happy compromise resulted from being in dialogue with Paul. At Thessalonica it
caused a riot and Paul had to escape by night (Acts 17:5-10). At Corinth they became abusive
(Acts 18:4-6), at Ephesus they became “obstinate and publicly maligned the Way” (Acts 19:9).
However, at Berea he found a much warmer response, “for they received the message with
great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. Many
of them came to believe (Acts 17:10-12).
Paul went to the Jews to win them for Christ. They did not always like it then, as many
Jews – and not a few prominent Christians – do not like the idea today, but the key point for
our observation now is to note, not just that he passionately evangelized the Jews but that he
did it by 'dialogue'. (Acts 17:2; 18:4, 19; 19:8).
What is Dialogue?
What then is the essence of dialogue? Clearly it involves a two-way traffic in the flow of
ideas and is in marked contrast to monologue. Nor does it convey the idea that two parties took
it in turns to monologue at each other, perhaps with a time-keeper to make sure that no-one
spoke for more than their share of the time! No, at the heart of dialogue is a commitment to
listen and understand what the other party is saying, that we might then more accurately
address our thoughts to his situation. John Stott has described the marks of dialogue as
authenticity, humility, integrity and sensitivity.[1] These are to be characteristics of us rather
than the process we engage in. In dialogue we stand alongside people to look at the truth
together. We do not adopt a confrontational stance, but rather help others with us to be
confronted by the truth that stands before us both.
Dialogue then is a process in pursuit of mutual understanding rather than compromise
and is concerned to uncover misconceptions, confusions, doubts and dilemmas. This is made
plain by the other verbs that Luke employs (Acts 17:2-4).
Explanation
In Acts 17:3 he records that Paul was engaged in “explaining” his message. He was
concerned to make it clear in the face of whatever confusions that might arise. Any teacher
knows that the only way to find out whether he has been understood is to listen to his pupil
describing what he has learnt. This can be a chastening experience where the teacher clearly
has to begin again and put the matter in another way. As he listens to what his pupil is saying,
he can begin to identify the problem areas and clarify the points at issue. “It is not what we say
that matters, but what they hear.” Only by entering into dialogue can we be sure that our
hearers understand what we are saying.
Dialogue for Paul however was not just limited to the pursuit of clear communication.
Luke goes on to describe Paul as “proving” his message (verse 3). This carries the idea that he
was substantiating what he said. He was commending his message in terms of its truthfulness
and marshalling arguments in support of his case. He was providing evidence. In this case with
the Jews, he was doing so from the Old Testament, the authority of which they accepted, to
show that Christ was indeed the Messiah. In the context of dialogue, Paul was evidently
listening to their doubts and specifically addressing them. In other words he was engaged in
argument
Argument
Now as some Christians have difficulty with the idea of dialogue, many seem to shrink
from argument. It seems to lie ill at ease with the idea of turning the other cheek and being a
peacemaker in a turbulent world. But this is to confuse things that differ. G.K. Chesterton wrote
that people generally quarrel because they cannot argue, and in that saying highlighted the
difference between the two. One does not need to be belligerent to engage in argument. The
essence of argument is to try to resolve a conflict in the world of ideas. It has to do with clarity
of thought and the delineation of underlying issues. It is an exercise in exposing the truth or
fallacy of certain propositions. It may be threatening and disturbing, but it is not in the nature
of argument to be rude and aggressive. Arguments don't need to become heated. Bernard
Shaw said that the test of a man's breeding is how he behaves in a quarrel. He might have
better said 'in an argument', because, when our tempers begin to intrude, we might fairly
conclude that we are no longer striving for truth but defending ourselves and our hurt pride.
When our arguments are weak we begin to shout the more loudly.
Paul realized then that what he was saying was liable to be disputed, and he was
concerned to demonstrate with appropriate argument that what he was saying was sober
truth. He was not inviting people to take a leap in the dark. As he replied to Festus who accused
him of being out of his mind, “What I am saying is true and reasonable” (Acts 26:25).
Persuasion
If there is any remaining doubt that this was the nature of Paul's evangelism, Luke
concludes by telling us (Acts 17:4), not that some of his hearers were converted, but that they
were “persuaded”. That may or may not be meant to imply the same thing. It would be quite
possible to be persuaded that what Paul was saying was the truth, but not embrace it. After all
we are told that even the demons believe – and tremble! However in using that word, it does
focus our minds on what Paul was actually trying to do. He was concerned in dialogue to
persuade those he was engaged with that the Christian message was true. It was between them
and their creator what they did with that truth. Paul knew that he could not make people
Christians. His task was to “proclaim” (Acts 17:3) that Jesus was the Christ, and Luke tells us that
he did this by dialogue, explanation, argument and persuasion.
Paul at Athens
That proclamation for Paul consisted of these ingredients is plain from many passages of
the New Testament In the market place at Athens he was in “dispute” with the philosophers. At
the Areopagus he was invited to deliver a monologue, yet it had all the ingredients of dialogue.
He had taken pains to learn about their beliefs. He had studied the objects of their worship
(Acts 17:22-23), was familiar with their philosophies and able to quote their writers (verse 28).
To appreciate the significance of each sentence of his Athenian address, one would need
to refer to a detailed commentary.[2] Paul was speaking very accurately into their situation and
presumably drew upon his classical education. To the Epicureans God was remote (cf. verse 28).
It was unnecessary to seek him (verse 27) nor did they fear divine judgment (verse 31). They
were opposed to superstition and idolatry (verse 29). The Stoics on the other hand stressed the
unity of mankind (verse 26) but had a pantheistic view of God (verse 28) and hence his nearness
(verse 27). Unlike Plato, they had no view of him as creator (verse 24).
Paul then had ‘listened’ to them carefully and had taken them very seriously. He
identified with their beliefs where he could and quoted approvingly both Epimenedes of Crete
and the poet Aratus (verse 28). He not only addressed their thinking and built on it but he did
not flinch from demonstrating the inadequacy of their ideas (verse 29).
With the Jews he met them in their synagogues, and reasoned with them from their
Scriptures. With the pagan philosophers, he met them on their home ground and reasoned
with them from their own writings and ideas.
A Mistaken Approach?
Some have tried to wriggle out of the implications of this passage, not least to avoid the
hard work which any imitation of his method would demand! They have argued that Paul was
unsuccessful at Athens and at Corinth adopted a more 'spiritual' approach. This is quite
untenable and leads us into mindless, insensitive evangelism of the worst order.
To start with, Luke has given us a most detailed account of what happened. It is actually
the only detailed description of Paul engaging with non-Jews, One would need overwhelming
arguments to assert that he recorded this as a demonstration of how not to do evangelism,
when he clearly forgot to give us any such warning! There is nothing in the text to imply such a
thing.
Neither was he unsuccessful. He had had a fairly rough ride from the Jews in
Thessalonica. Now, speaking to Gentiles who knew nothing at all about the promised Christ
(verse 18), he actually saw some of them converted as well. Presumably, Luke named Dionysius
and Damaris because they became well-known figures in the early church. Indeed, Eusebius
records that the first Bishop of Athens was named Dionysius, quite possibly the same man.
Certainly, at Corinth he did not proclaim his message with great eloquence or superior
wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:1) and conceded that what he said was foolishness to the Greeks (1
Corinthians 1:23); but he also met a similar response at Athens, where sneering from the
philosophers brought his message to an abrupt end (Acts 17:32).
Neither is there anything in the text to say that he subsequently changed his approach.
When it says in Acts 18:5, that “he devoted himself exclusively to the word” this is not to imply
that he stopped reading Greek literature. Rather it implies that he got on with preaching full
time and no longer had to worry about tent-making since Silas and Timothy had now joined
him! (Acts 18:3-5)
The only other details we have of an account of Paul addressing non-Jews is his appeal to
a farming community at Lystra (Acts 14:15-17). Here he adopted a similar methodology. The
creator of heaven and earth “has not left himself without testimony: he has shown kindness by
giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and
fills your hearts with joy.” He started where they were and began to argue on the basis of their
knowledge of God.
Consider how Paul continued at Ephesus. There was another wealthy, pluralist,
sophisticated, pagan society. Paul started as usual at the synagogue. He spoke boldly there for
three months “arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God” (Acts 19.8). When he was
forced to leave, he took the disciples with him “and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of
Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province
of Asia heard the word of the Lord.”
Before Agrippa, Paul again presented his evidence and the king replied, “Do you think that
in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28). He clearly
understood what Paul was trying to do.
Good to the last, our final picture of Paul is in his rented apartment in Rome. “From
morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to
convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. Some were
convinced by what he said, but others would not believe.” “For two whole years Paul stayed
there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without
hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 28:23,
24, 30, 31)
For the apostle Paul, the call to preach was the call to persuade. Perhaps more important
than the sum of the passages we have considered is Paul's own statement in a key chapter
about his ministry which he summarized in just those terms: “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we
try to persuade men.” (2 Corinthians 5:11)
We could go on and look at the methods employed by other apostles, of Peter appealing
to the evidence of witnesses, of Philip in dialogue with the Ethiopian, of Stephen pressing the
Sanhedrin so hard with the truth that they murdered him. Neither should it escape our notice
that the Gospel narratives are full of accounts of Jesus in dialogue – with enquirers such as
Nicodemus (John 3), the Samaritan woman (John 4), a rich young materialist (Matthew 19:16),
his host at a dinner party (Luke 7:36), his opponents (Mark 12:13), and a doubter called Thomas
(John 20:24). Again and again he responded to a question with a further question, pursuing the
point at issue only as far as the individual wished to take it.
Preaching then, both for Christ and his apostles, involved dialogue, explanation, evidence,
argument and persuasion. They believed that what they were saying was true, and they
committed themselves to the task of persuading others that it was true also.
