Dialogue versus Evangelization It is often said that we should as Catholics engage in dialogue with non-believers instead of trying to evangelize them, that we should be the Church of Accompaniment instead of conversion. Many critics of this idea may be mistaken in that one does not replace the other but is to be used in conjunction with the other. Any serious Catholic, follower of Jesus Christ, cannot in good conscience suggest that we should not be engaging in evangelization. The very last words of Jesus Christ on earth were to this effect. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Mark 16:15 Any serious Catholic cannot be taken seriously if they say otherwise. What I suggest is that instead, dialogue and accompaniment maybe referring to a methodology or even a preliminary step in the process of evangelization. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” Luke 24:32 Jesus literally accompanied the disciples on their journey on the road and engaged in dialogue with them conversations about the scriptures. Jesus both accompanied and dialogued with his disciples, and in this way is giving us an example of a methodology of evangelization. Jesus did not confirm his disciples in their fear or doubt but instead he spoke the truth, using the Scriptures as his reference for his proofs. So too does Christ expect us to evangelize in the same way. Dialogue and evangelization are simply tools in a possible methodology on how can evangelize, they do not however replace evangelization. 22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. St. Paul takes what we would consider to be the more traditional “tact” in evangelization which to lecture a group of people. This what people would most relate to being “street preachers” or those that try to speak to large crowds voluntarily or involuntarily. What I believe the lesson is here and the application of the two formats of evangelization would be voluntary versus involuntary evangelization. Homilies, lectures in Academic settings, or even speeches are places for what you could refer to as the “public forum” form of evangelization. This is effective when large groups of people coming and are willing and open to listen to what is said. There is little resistance typically from the group when this format is employed. This is easy evangelization, what we often refer to as “preaching to the choir”. What is more difficult however is when your audience is either unwilling to listen or has a strong objection to what you have to say. In the case of atheists, liberals or devout adherents to another religion such as with radical Islamists. These persons typically are more often eager to debate with you rather than passively listen. What Jesus reveals to us in the teaching of his apostles on the road, is that speaking to a smaller group, in an intimate fashion, even outside, often is more effective when conversing with individuals that may have firm opinion against what you have to say. In a non-argumentative and friendly fashion, sharing with this individual the truth of the Gospel as friendly stranger citing references and providing facts as apposed to lecturing. One would presume that the Apostles had questions that Jesus answered, this small informal non-confrontational format lends itself to deeper discussion and a friendly exchange as apposed to the one directional discussion that often ensues in a lecture or homily format.