Conversations on When Everything Is Missions - Rediscovering the Mission of the Church
Denominational Roundtable Virtual
2iC (Second in Command) Virtual
December CEO Thought Leader Briefing
The Five Directions to Guide Investing Your Leadershipby Ralph Covell
Dialogue fever is our contemporary syndrome. Talkathons are the order of the day. The prospect of dialogue will turn on many Christian students and leaders even as the more traditional terms will turn them off. Seldom is there an issue of contemporary Christian journals without some space being devoted to this subject. And even we are writing about it here.
INTRODUCTION
Dialogue fever is our contemporary syndrome. Talkathons are the order of the day. The prospect of dialogue will turn on many Christian students and leaders even as the more traditional terms will turn them off. Seldom is there an issue of contemporary Christian journals without some space being devoted to this subject. And even we are writing about it here.
Not that everyone is happy with this trend. Thomas McDonnel of the editorial staff of the Roman Catholic paper, The Boston Pilot, alarmingly protests, Stop the dialogue, I want to get off! Dialogue, you say. Listen, it is now trialogue, quadrupalogue, umpteen alogue all over the place, until you literally choke up in the multisyllabic flood and furor of it all. I have seen some of the best minds of my generation gone to silly putty in the slosh-posh gabfest weary-dreary drudge of word-dunk tizzy of the follow-up drag down of the oh so meaningful involvement and concern for the massive pervasive pluralist secular-city encounter of it all that I want to scream for God’s sake and my own monologic sanity-stop the dialogue, I want to get off.1
And many more within the ranks of evangelicals are highly suspicious. To them dialogue is the very antithesis of what they want to do. It is compromise, capitulation and even a type of apostasy with God’s truth "up for grabs." To even seriously opt for the possibility of dialogue makes them and their constituency feel squeamish. One of the Conservative Baptist field conferences recently took an action, the final sentence of which reads, "Therefore, while accepting every opportunity to witness for our faith personally, we cannot engage in `dialogue’ officially with the Roman Catholic Church."2
What is the general climate today producing the concern for religious dialogue in the missionary context? The rise of the modern missionary movement coincided with the cultural, political and economic expansion of the white races of Western Europe and North America. This expansion into almost every area of the world has been halted and reversed. The revolt by the peoples of Asia and Africa against domination by the Western world has both resulted from and produced a deep psychological resentment against the West. Religions once apparently moribund have throbbed with new life as a vehicle for self-identity and nationalistic fervor. NonWestern Christians have been challenged by these events and attitudes to demonstrate that their faith can be distinguished from its past associations with these historical contingencies of Western colonialism. National Christian churches are called upon to "co-exist" with other religions. Their witness is challenged to be sensitive to the spiritual and cultural insults of a previous day when the Christian faith was a part of the Western religious package. Thus we are brought to the period of religious pluralism-the period Cragg calf that of "interreligion"3 and which sets the stage for what Kraemer describes as "the coming dialogue."4 This is a real encounter with the non-Christian world such as the church has not had since A.D. 312. "It has never happened before on equal termsnone of the adherents of ether faith’s approach dialogue with the least trace of inferiority and shame."5 These developments are, of course, not uniformly worldwide, but the trend is clearly discernible. We cannot banish our contemporary world with a magic wand and reproduce the good old days of monologue only and a poor, secondhand acquaintance with the religious beliefs of our communication targets.
Vatican II is primarily responsible for the climate encouraging Protestant-Roman Catholic dialogue. Even New Delhi, although graced with Roman Catholic observers, was a "predialogical situation."6 Now we have the Decree on Ecumenism urging and approving dialogue with the separated brethren (Section 4). Also there is the creation of the Secretariat for Non-Believers (Marxists, atheists, etc.) and the Secretariat for Christianity and Non-Christian Religions. The Roman Catholic intramural dialogue with Protestants has proliferated unbelievably, including informal living room dialogues, dialogues between Catholic and Protestant parishes; between Protestant and Catholic seminaries and clergy; between the Roman Catholic Church and other churches (Lutherans, Episcopalians and Presbyterians); between international Roman Catholic and Protestant study institutes; and between joint working groups of the World Council of Churches and the Secretariat for Christian Unity. And with Uppsala there are nine Catholic voting members on the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC.
The New Delhi assembly also produced a new interchurch dialogical point of view between Asia-African churches and the older Eastern chinches, between the ancient Eastern and the ancient Western churches, and between Communist area churches and those from the non-Communist lands.7
DEFINITIONS OF DIALOGUE
And so the age of dialogue is with us whether we like it or not, right or wrong. Perhaps this is the time to wrestle with a definition. The English word "dialogue" comes from the Greek noun dialogos or the verb dialegomai. In classical and Hellenistic Greek the verb was used largely for "converse" or "discuss." Since Greek philosophy knew of no other way to reach the logos or idea, the emphasis on discussion or debate was very prominent. This philosophical overtone does not seem to carry into the New Testament where there is a strong emphasis on the revelatory nature of God’s truth.8
Historically, the overtones of "dialectic" have sometimes been present. Hegel, for example, with views rooted in Plato, Heraclitus, and in the Neo-Platonist Proclus, viewed the dialectic as a necessary movement in the very nature of thought, history and the universe itself. Truth, Hegel affirmed, can only be arrived at by the necessary passing of thoughts or concepts into their contradictory opposites and the achievements of a higher unity. The terms thesis, antithesis and synthesis conveniently summarize his contribution although not originating with him.9 Tillich in his radical existentialism was among several to go beyond dialogue to a dialectic. Roger Garaudy implies the dialectic by stating:
The highest level of dialogue is the integration by each of us of that which the other bears in himself, as other. The depth of a believer’s faith depends on the strength o� atheism that he bears in himself. And the depth of an atheist’s humanism depends on the strength of faith that he bears in himself.10
The above treatments of the meaning of dialogue in certain historical contexts may or may not be helpful. "Meaning" is a very elusive concept. May we rehearse some basic principles:
1. The meaning of a word (in a diachronic sense) is never exactly what it was in some past context. We have no ontological grounds on which to insist that it must remain the same, e.g., to say "it should mean this".
2. The meaning of any word (in a synchronic sense) does not have precisely the same meaning to any of you here at this meeting-including the word "dialogue."
3. Words, at the very least, have both denotative (referential) and connotative (emotive) meanings.
4. Your reaction to any word, e.g., "dialogue," is a good deal of its meaning for you. Whether you use the word or not, will depend in large measure on your own participation in a community ethos where there is a like degree of shared response to this communicative symbol.
5. Much of the emotive meaning of a word will come from factors in the communicative process-used by whom, where and in what way with whom. There is considerable difference, for example, in the meaning of dialogue to each one of us between Dr. James Pike discussing papal infallibility with Bishop Sheen over national television as a part of the opening of an ecumenical institute, and Dr. Arthur Glasser "dialoguing" with an animist chief on the subject of polygamy and marriage in the secluded quiet of an African but on the occasion of his weekly evangelistic trip to this village. Jacob Loewen’s emphasis on empathy, exposure, reciprocity and the missionary role of learner, if taken from its jungle environment, would border on many persons’ definition of "dialogue.""
6. Despite the foregoing points, meaning is not so ambiguous as to preclude communication. Words do not have points of meaning but areas o� meaning. And these areas are made up of many referential and emotive components. When there is general agreement on these components in a community, communication may take place.11
COMPONENTS OF DIALOGUE
What are some of the referential components of "dialogue" which are shared by many users of the term? A nonreligious definition from the communication field will be of some help:
Dialogue is that address and response between persons an which there is a flow of meaning between them in spite of the obstacles that would normally block the relationship. It is that interaction between persons in which one of them seeks to give himself as he is to the other and peeks also to know the other as the other is. This means that he will not attempt to impose his own truth and view on the other.12
Several components of the word appear here. These are mutuality (obviously involving not only speaking but listening); personal confrontation (there is no dialogue between separate "faiths" as such); equality of persons (not necessarily of viewpoints); increased understanding by removing obstacles to communication, candor, tolerance or openness; humility and non-imposition of viewpoints. The word "impose" in the above definition is amplified as follows: "The question is whether people are merely being directed and used or whether they are first respected and valued for what they are in themselves:" This would preclude, apparently, any types of coercion, misrepresentation and manipulation that could come under the stigma of proselytism.
Such other possible referential components as formal, systematic, oral exchange of ideas in a public manner by a group of persons will depend on the communication context.14 In the same way the emotive components which trouble us here such as consensus of opinion, indifference to truth, capitulation, compromise, least common denominator, no evangelistic witness or decision, etc., will depend on the communication process. They are a part of the total meaning of dialogue since some people do include them. And if we indiscriminately use the word "dialogue" without some attempts to limit and define the components we feel are present, there may be much harmful misunderstanding. On the other hand, fear of a word and of the possible consequent misunderstanding ought not to blind us to the values of the dialogical process in our missionary task. We can even use another word as long as it contains at least some of these valuable components.
No one can deny that our emotive responses to the word "dialogue" have some bases in fact. The connotations we attach to dialogue are best exemplified by various leaders in the ecumenical movement. Always in their thinking of the Catholic-Protestant dialogue is the implied goal of unity. The team "dialogue" does not appear in the Christian Century subject indices until 1962. It disappears by 1964 and the following years to be replaced by Catholic-Protestant Relations or Church Unity.
Among the famous six "ground rules for the dialogue" proposed by Robert McAfee Brown is number four stating "each partner must accept responsibility in humility and penitence for what his group has done, and is doing, to foster and perpetuate division."15 This seems to say that the goal of dialogue-ecumenical unity-must be agreed on before we start. To quote Lowell, "Dialogue ought not be contrition over differences but witness to distinctives."16 Little wonder that this predetermined result can produce bargaining with God’s truth and results in an unbiblical type of tolerance!
This preoccupation may go beyond Christian unity and extend to the non-Christian religions as well. "True dialogue is not a Christian teaching a Hindu or a Hindu explaining his dogmas to a Christian; rather both are meeting the Mystery."17 Thus the possibility develops that Christ is partly or fully present in Hinduism.18
Evangelism is certainly not a dominant component in ecumenical dialogue. We are reminded that dialogue is not merely a new tactic with identical strategy-to convert Hindus by the use of less aggressive and somewhat more subtle methods.19 Yet we must not be unfair to many who continue to have the evangelistic concern within the conciliar movement. The Kandy Statement includes this concise observation:
Dialogue and proclamation are not identical but related. At any time or place within the course of our living in dialogue, moments for the proclamation of the Gospel may be given . . . proclamation is made in other ways besides dialogue, but should always be made in the spirit of dialogue. On the other hand dialogue may include proclamation, since it must always be undertaken in the spirit of those who have good news to share.20
Furthermore, a study consideration of the Kandy consultations noted: "We commend the importance of the proselyting concept in the good sense . . ."21 The Kandy Statement allows, as well, for conversion as a spiritual rebirth and as a cultural and sociological change of religious affiliation as a result of dialogue.
We accept these statements in good faith while expressing our concern at the many expressions from various leaders to the end that "the old rigid distinction between the saved and lost is giving way to a view which is much less dogmatic and . . . much more Christian."22 Hope for more and letter dialogue of the ecumenical variety is often wedded to a particular theological viewpoint such as enunciated by a Roman Catholic writer:
In the creation of a theology which sees the world, not as opposed to the Christian message but redeemed by it, lies hope for future dialogue-with Marxists, with Marxist-Leninists, with revisionists and even with Chinese Communists.23
If unity is our goal, then obviously common ground must be found that will enable us to reconcile all our differences with everyone.
BASES FOR DIALOGUE
Given these components shared in some degree by many within the ecumenical communal ethos and which produce our emotive hang-up, is there any reason for and value in dialogue for the "conservative-evangelical" (ecumenical synonym for "separated brethren")? Is dialogue a friend or foe to us? Is it an opportunity for, or an obstacle to, the work we are seeking to do?
The verb dialegomai is found repeatedly in Acts (17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19: 8, 9; 20: 7, 9; 24:12, 25) and in Mark 9:34, Hebrews 12:5, and Jude 9. While admitting that many of the Lukan usages may simply have the idiomatic meaning of "speak" or "preach," the more generally accepted meaning is that of discuss, debate, argue, converse, etc.24 A mediating view is suggested by Arndt and Gingrich with the definition "to conduct a discussion or lectures which were liable to end in disputations."25 Of Acts 20:7 Bruce comments, "A conversation rather than a lecture is indicated."26 The weight of evidence would seem to indicate that Paul’s presentation of truth was often dialogical rather than monological, and afforded some degree of public forum for the argumentation and airing of contradictory viewpoints. Truth was not imposed, and viable alternatives-not caricatures-were clear to the disputants and hearers.
The theological basis of an effective dialogue with those of other faiths (limiting it to thus for right now) is some form of natural theology or general revelation. Granting many varieties of opinions, the biblical view (Rom. 1-2; Acts 14:15-17; and Acts 17:26-28) indicates quite clearly that all men, by God’s grace, have some knowledge of God and/or natural or moral law. This knowledge of the holy may not be arrived at by speculative reason as attempted by Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas. It is not redemptive in nature. Moreover, such truth as does exist within the framework of other religions is not in a vacuum. It must always be related to man’s sin and disobedience. It is truth but within the dialectic of being changed into a lie. With all its shortcomings, however, it affords a theological base for dialogue.27 Whether world religious systems are praeparatio evangelica, whether they are to some degree continuous or discontinuous with God’s Word, and whether they represent negative or positive responses to God’s revelation, it is still a fact that they are struggling with human problems to which the Gospel is the only ultimate, unique and exclusive answer.
Complementing and reinforcing the biblical and theological base is a new understanding of communication. Of special importance is the difference between contact and communication.
Inter-human communication can occur only when there is contact or exposure to a set of symbols. The ultimate in communication is only achieved, however, when the interacting parties understand each other, can identify with each other’s point of view and a transfer o� meaning has taken place that influences conduct. A transition to this distinction between contact and communication in the mass media field is now occurring.28
Basic to communication is a thorough knowledge of the communication target. Missionary work is communication of the Gospel-partly by presence and largely by proclamation. Each of these avenues demands some type of structure to provide for maximum feedback, comprehension and acceptance. Monological proclamation can be done in a dialogical spirit, e.g., preaching to specific relevant needs ascertained through much personal contact. An attempt to address man about what is meaningful for his life must begin with listening to the man’s own statements of his hopes, fears, troubles, joys, frustrations, loves and hates. Such preaching, grounded in the Word and directed at the specifically relevant needs of the target, has a legitimate and important role.
The function, moreover, of any monological proclamation, according to recent findings from communications research, is to inspire, to bring new and relevant information, to challenge with a new vision and to reinforce present attitudes. Real attitudinal changes come from two-way communication allowing for a maximum of group participation with reaction, comment and discussion. One study reveals that mass communication can be effective in producing a shift on unfamiliar, lightly felt, peripheral issues-those that do not matter much to the audience or are not tied to audience predisposition. On the others it is effective in reinforcing opinions but only infrequently changes them?29
If these findings are accurate observations, dialogue, by whatever name we call it, must needs be a part of our ministry. Without its vigorous stimulation the pulpits on the mission field, as at home, will be empty for "its words are not heard by the man in the pew."30 Jesus "knew what was in man" (John 2:25) and this knowledge was reflected in parables, discussion and other teaching methods utilizing the dialogical principle.
Assuming then that the evangelical has reasons for dialogue, are there any guidelines to follow? May I suggest a few for aims, attitudes and areas of dialogue?
AIMS OF DIALOGUE
1. To clarify our understanding of the viewpoints of others. Institutional and individual beliefs in our target society will never be completely uniform. In the context of non-Christian religions this understanding of complex differences is essential if we are not to be overcome by the subtleties of syncretism. Luzbetak affirms that a basic reason for syncretism is a failure to understand non-Christian beliefs.32 And an any context how dare we presume to minister without a sincere attempt to "know what is in man"?
2. To clarify our own understanding of God’s truth, particularly in its application to the existential situation. The viewpoints of others will give greater focus to our apprehension of God’s Word, may contribute some new understanding of nonredemptive truth, will force us to see why we believe certain things, and will enable us to better articulate the core of our message. You may say, "We already have the truth." Yes, it is available to us, but it may not be focused without personal confrontation. Theoretically we know what the Bible says about prejudice. Do we, though, really understand this in our present American society without some in-depth dialogue with black friends on this issue?33 We think we understand the Bible viewpoint on law and order. Are we as sure about justice? We theoretically understand the -spiritual nature of missions from God’s Word. Informal dialogue with a few historically informed Chinese Communists helped us to see many of our blind spots.
3. To communicate an evangelistic witness. If the Holy Spirit has promised to bless the communication of God’s truth, then dialogue itself-and not in the polemical sense-is a type of indirect evangelism. It is the sharing of God’s truth. Its very form communicates (recall McLuhan, "the medium is the message") our concern, our commitment, our convictions, our humility, and our security in the truth. And God’s truth may become real here in its existential focus as it never would in a decision-orientated monologue. Points of difference will be clarified, leading to a more intelligent commitment to Christ.
4. To prepare the way for other more traditional types of evangelism outside of the immediate dialogical situation. These will have more relevance when this foundation has been laid.
ATTITUDES IN DIALOGUE
1. Objectivity in that we have taken the time to understand others as they see themselves.
2. Humility in not always assuming the authoritarian role almost indissolubly linked with monologue.
3. Candid self-evaluation in the recognition that God’s revelation and our finite apprehension of it are not necessarily the same thing.
4. Security in the knowledge that all reality is of God and we need not fear the truth in its full exposure to all the opposing beliefs of man.
5. Openness in the recognition that only with a dialogical spirit can we find a preventive for isolation and the ghetto mentality that insulates us in our understanding from the world for which Christ died.
6. Empathy toward the viewpoint of others with a desire to remove all obstacles and barriers apart from the offense of the cross.
7. Honesty in presenting and examining alternatives so that a free commitment of real depth is encouraged.
8. Compassionate conviction to share our understanding of God’s Word although recognizing with Kraemer that "as we really get acquainted with one another and really begin to communicate in a forthright manner . . . we shall come to understand better than we do that the differences between religions are unbridgeable and irreconcilable.34 Lowell likewise urges that we abandon the "dialogue of accommodation" and in frank and direct interchange eliminate the pitiful and maudlin protectiveness of sensitive participants."35 Dialogue, while not polemics, is not a false irenicism. We share convictions and not opinions. We do not enter dialogue to betray the truth.
9. Earnest concern and intent that a knowledge of the truth discussed will bring present or ultimate decision for Christ.
10. With understanding of the limitations of formal dialogue to certain more intellectual levels of the target society. This dictates use of more informal dialogue that will create the base for a wider understanding and more practical evangelistic outreach.
11. With a keen sense of priority that will keep us from spending undue time in fruitless dialogue with a consequent pauperization of our ultimate goal of church planting.
12. With recognition that we Western missionaries serve together with national Christians who may, for very good reasons of their own, see more danger than value in any types of dialogue.
AREAS OF DIALOGUE
The areas of dialogue cannot be arbitrarily designated but will evolve largely in terms of our own aims and the needs of those to whom we minister. No aspect of our message or ministry ought to be considered beyond the reach of criticism and discussion.
Given these aims, attitudes and areas for dialogue, something of the same benefit may be received by us now as has come from such an approach in the past.
The Protestant-Catholic dialogue which has significance should be patterned on that between Luther and John Eck in 1519. From this famous exchange, as in the case of the fourth-century exchange between Athanasius and Arius, positions of momentous consequence for the church were hammered out. Dialogue provided the anvil and the hammers. It was the occasion for a full confrontation of theological positions and all the far-flung implications which accompanied them. Luther emerged from the debates with Eck in the same position with which he commenced. Yet it was not the same. The encounter had drawn him out, forced him to face, as he had not done before, the logic which was inherent in his own teaching. Thus, Luther and the Protestants generally owe a lastin ng debt to Eck and to the dialogue. From this dialogue the full scope and wonder of the Protestant faith emerged.36
Endnotes
1. McDonnel, T. P., Boston Pilot, April 22, 1967.
2. CBFMS, F D 5363, p. 2.
3. See part 2 of Cragg, K., Sandals at the Mosque, New York: Oxford University Press, 1959, pp. 67-103.
4. Kraemer, H., Religion and the Christian Faith, London: Lutterworth Press, 1956. Note Part V, "The Christian Dialogue with Religion and Religions."
5. Webster, D., The Local Church and World Mission, London: SCM Press, 1962, p. 28.
6. Visser ‘t Hooft, Christian Century news item. May 9, 1962.
7. Ibid.
8. Kittel (ed.) , Theological Word Book of the New Testament, Vol. II, pp. 93-6.
9. Edwards, Paul (ed.-in-chief ), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: The Macmillan Co. and the Free Press, 1967. Vol. II, "didactic," by Roland Hall, p. 385-9.
10. Garaudy, Roger, "Communist-Christian Dialogue," Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. XXII, No. 3, March 1967, p. 212.
11. See Practical Anthropology, Vol. XIV, Nos. 4 and 5; Vol. II, No. 4, and I.R.M., April 1968, p. 233-244.
12. Howe, Reuel, The Miracle of Dialogue. New York: The Seabury Press, 1963, p. 37.
13. Howe, op. cit., p. 38.
14. Potter, D. and M. P. Andersen, Discussion. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1963, p. 1 and 152.
15. Brown, R. M., The Ecumenical Revolution. An interpretation of the Catholic-Protestant Dialogue. N. Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1967, p. 74.
16. Lowell, C. Stanley, The Ecumenical Mirage. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 174.
17. Klostermaier, K., "Hindu-Christian Dialogue," Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Winter 1968, Vol. V, No. 1, p. 34. Also see Brack and Hance, Public Speaking and Discussion for Religious Leaders. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1961.
18. Klostermaier, op. cit. p. 22.
19. Op. cit., p. 26.
20. Statement of Protestant-Orthodox-Catholic Consultation. Kandy, Ceylon, Feb. 27- March 5, 1967.
21. See text of Kandy Statement. Study Encounter. Vol. III No. 2, 1967, p. 55.
22. Strawson, W., The Expository Times, Oct. 1965, p. 10, and quoted approvingly by Lynn de Silva in "Non Christian Religions and God’s Plan of Salvation." Study Encounter, Vol. III, No. 2, 1967, p. 65.
23. Wallace, Cecelia, "Dialogue with Communism," Catholic Mind, March 1965, p. 52.
24. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, and Other Early Christians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956, p. 184.
25. Ibid.
26. Bruce, F. F., The Acts of the Apostles Creek Text. Chicago: IVCF, 1952, p. 372.
27. Cole, E. K. "An Examination of the Theological Bases for Dialogue in Contemporary Missionary Outreach," The Tyndale Paper, Vol. XIII, No. 2, May 1968, p. 9-12 of particular value in this discussion.
28. DeFleur, M. L. and Otto N. Larsen, The Flow of Information: An experiment in Mass Communication. New York: Harper and Row, 1957, pp. 22-23.
29. Berelson, B. and G. Steiner, Human Behaviour: An Inventory of Scientific findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964, pp. 540-543.
30. Reid, Clyde, The Empty Pulpit. New York: Harper and Row, 1967, p. 91.
31. Lindsell, Harold, "Attack Syncretism with Dialogue," Evangelical Missions Quarterly, Vol. III, No. 4, Summer 1967.
32. Luzbetak, L., The Church and Cultures. Techny, Illinois: Divine Word Publications, 1963, p. 244-246.
33. See Pannell, W. My Friend, the Enemy. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1968, pp. 124ff.
34. Kraemer, H., Why Christianity of All Religions. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962, p. 122.
35. Lowell, The Ecumenical Mirage, p. 176.
36. Lowell, op. cit., p. 188.
OTHER USEFUL BOOKS OR ARTICLES
Kasper, Walter, "The Dialogue with Protestant Theology" in the Church and Ecumenism. New York: Paulist Press, 1965
Miano, Vincenzo, "Through Dialogue to Alliance," in Dialogue: An International Review published by Forum, Vienna.
Miller and Wright (eds.), Ecumenical Dialogue at Harvard: The Roman Catholic-Protestant Colloquium. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1964. Particularly relevant is W. D. Davies’ "Challenge to Dialogue in the New Testament," pp. 110-151.
McDormand Thomas, "Dialogue or Witness," Christianity Today. Dec. 3, 1965.
Winter 1965 edition of Journal of Ecumenical Studies.
Griffiths, Don Bede, "Dialogue with Hinduism," Catholic Mind, June, 1965, pp. 36-42.
Speight, R. M., "Some Bases for a Christian Apologetic to Islam," I. R. M., Vol. 54, 1965,p. 353-359.
Koenig, F., "Prelude to Dialogue," in The Center Magazine. Vol. I, No. 5, July, 1968, pp. 19-21.
—–
Copyright © Evangelism and Missions Information Service. Not to be reproduced or copied in any way without written permiss
Comments are closed.