Abstract
THIS ARTICLE IS a response to Elmer Thiessen's article on evangelism in this journal. Although I agree with his general position that evangelism is an educationally justifiable activity, Thiessen criticizes comments I have made in my writings and charges me with being ambiguous. I respond to these remarks by defending the distinction that I make between evangelism and proselytization and then by questioning Thiessen's definition of evangelism as ‘intentional and verbal persuasion’. Finally I suggest a different understanding of evangelism in classrooms, based on a model of influence that is not solely concerned with intentional persuasion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
