![\"thinking](\"https:\/\/www.embassy.education\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/phones-are-altering-our-brains-maybe_bws1.jpg.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Understanding the complexities that Matthew R. Petrusek explores in \u2018Evangelization and Ideology\u2019 requires more than a mere week\u2019s dedication to reading. He digs deeply, providing a guide to finding God within the political culture that surrounds us.\u201d<\/p>\n
He writes to analyse four of the major secular ideologies of our day, namely, Utilitarianism, Classical liberalism, Progressivism (wokeism) and Non-theistic conservativism. The book is heavy but offers insightful thoughts as he plumbs the depths of the ideologies above to posit his view that these ideologies make evangelism possible. His book encourages the evangelist to steel their nerves[1]<\/a>\u00a0whilst offering tips on how to \u201chave a decent shot at conversing with detractors in a way that doesn\u2019t leave hearts (including our hearts) more hardened.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n Before looking at a few aspects of the book that motivate the Christian in active, healthy debate, I was struck by his placement of God in the mix of political culture. My Dad, an excellent preacher and theologian, often declared that God \u201cBoggles the mind.\u201d By that, he meant that the more you get to know God, the more there is to know, and the more impressive you understand Him to be. Quoting Robert Barron, Petrusek writes, \u201cAuthentic faith is not\u2026 infrarational, it is suprarational.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0The definition of God in the suprarational perfectly places Him in the middle of the political culture while maintaining his pre-eminence \u201cFar above all things.\u201d[4]<\/a>\u00a0I love that Petrusek acknowledges the Suprarational nature of faith amid the gritty, political, and ideological debates. Not only does this honour God in the middle of all things, but also, for those who need it, it provides an opt-out in dialogue, a resolution to all discussions that finishes with \u201cGod boggles the mind!\u201d<\/p>\n One of the great lessons Petrusek delivers in his book is successfully engaging in argument. His conviction that we can argue better has several facets.<\/p>\n At first glance, the idea that we should engage in more arguments[5]<\/a>\u00a0might seem concerning, yet it holds considerable merit. In a society fraught with identity politicking and offence-taking through ideas\/words that challenge someone\u2019s personhood, perhaps more, not less, arguments will enable society to become more resilient. The fear is that \u201cspeaking your mind will carry some risk,\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0but as Petrusek supposes, \u201cWe\u2019d be fighting less if we are having more arguments with each other.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n Secondly, Petrusek introduces a foundational concept for constructive argument, presenting four initial choices: \u201cYou can run. You can submit. You can bloody your knuckles. Or you can craft a better argument to make your case boldly.\u201d[8]<\/a>\u00a0Reflecting on these choices through my own experiences, I\u2019ve embraced each option at different times. Among these strategies, \u201ccrafting a better argument\u201d emerges as the most virtuous, fostering personal growth and potentially benefiting others. This method also naturally leads to opportunities for evangelisation.<\/p>\n Thirdly, it is helpful to know that a well-researched idea presented during an argument allows the respondent to follow one of the options outlined above similarly. They can run (you win the argument but not a friend). They can submit (which, if done correctly, is the ideal conclusion to the argument). They can bloody their knuckles (in which case no one wins). Or they can respond with a better argument (in which your life is enriched if you are wrong and they are correct).<\/p>\n Fourthly, argument and emotion usually go together. It is difficult to discuss issues surrounding political culture (or any issue for that matter) without the inevitable emotional outburst from one of the respondents. Emotions are often rooted in the failed view that we must always be correct. Friedman says, \u201cThe acceptance and even cherishing of uncertainty is critical to keeping the human mind from voyaging into the delusion of omniscience.\u201d[9]<\/a>\u00a0Petrusek\u2019s placement as God and faith as Suprarational here is critical. While we are often wrong, there is One who is always right.<\/p>\n Fifthly, Petrusek\u2019s concept of \u201cthinking in circles\u201d[10]<\/a>\u00a0emphasises the iterative process of reflection, discussion, and reinterpretation through the seven domains of politics, applied morality, morality, epistemology, anthropology, ontology and theology, which allows for deeper reasoning and understanding of beliefs and values within individuals and communities. By embracing a non-linear way of reasoning, Petrusek challenges the conventional linear narratives that often dominate ideological discourses, facilitating a more holistic and inclusive engagement with diverse perspectives and creating environments where genuine dialogue and transformative learning can occur.<\/p>\n Considering his background, it is encouraging, but not surprising, that Petrusek acknowledges the place of theology in all things. Theology, which was historically referred to as the \u201cQueen of the Sciences\u201d[11]<\/a>\u00a0by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica[12]<\/a>\u00a0written between 1265 and 1274, has been relegated by universities and academics alike as the scientific age of reason continues to thrive. In Great Britain, many universities have closed the Biblical and Theological departments or vastly reduced them due to the limited appeal in society. In \u201cApplying gravity\u201d[13]<\/a>\u00a0to thinking in circles and with a more traditional hierarchical diagrammatic model,[14]<\/a>\u00a0Petrusek rightfully positions Theology as the foundation upon which all the other domains lay. He defines theology as, \u201cWhat is the nature of ultimate reality, or, put differently, what is the condition for the possibility of existence itself.\u201d[15]<\/a><\/p>\n I wonder if society allowed God to boggle the mind again and place theology as the foundation of all discourse; perhaps we would live in a more loving, forgiving world\u2014a new Garden of Eden.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a>\u00a0Petrusek, Matthew R.\u00a0Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture.<\/em>\u00a0Park Ridge, Il.: Word on Fire, 2023. 446.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid, 22.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>\u00a0Holy Bible: New International Version. Ephesians 1:21. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a>\u00a0Petrusek, 21.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a>\u00a0Mounk, Yascha.\u00a0The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time<\/em>. New York: Penguin Press, 2023. 272.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a>\u00a0Petrusek, 21.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a>\u00a0Ibid, 39.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a>\u00a0Friedman, Edwin H., and Peter Steinke.\u00a0A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix<\/em>. 10th Anniversary edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017. 52.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a>\u00a0Petrusek, 44.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a>\u00a0Thompson, Claude H. \u201cThe Queen of the Sciences.\u201d\u00a0The Asbury Journal<\/em>, 1949. https:\/\/place.asburyseminary.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=2248&context=asburyjournal.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a>\u00a0Aquinas, Thomas.\u00a0Summa Theologica<\/em>. New edition. Westminster, Md: Ave Maria Press, 2000.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a>\u00a0Petrusek, 59.<\/p>\n