I think there's probably a further point to be made, that to some extent addresses this aspect of the problem.
You'll have noticed that a lot of the religious debate here and elsewhere essentially proceeds from an assumption that everybody is more or less Christian in outlook -- the purpose of debate is mainly to settle the doctrinal issues.
Not just "everybody" as in "involved in the debate," but literally everybody, as in "people with whom one is likely to come into contact in their daily life and work." This goes back to the old idea of "Christendom," wherein Christian belief and practice hold near-universal authority across a vast geographical region.
But from a religious standpoint at least, "Christendom" doesn't really exist anymore. With that in mind, we can begin to make distinctions. How would Jesus operate in that sort of environment? We already know the answers: the Gospels tell of a world where those conditions actually existed.
Jesus certainly took part in vigorous doctrinal debate with the religious authorities of the day. But that's because (at least nominally) they agreed on the underlying basis of their debates.
But by comparison, look at His approach to common people, non-Jews in particular. It was far more gentle and understanding, even as He told them hard truths about themselves. (The Samaritan woman at the well is an excellent example.)
The world we live in, and the people we need to reach, are of the latter sort. We must deal with them differently: doctrine is very much a secondary concern. Jesus did not preach doctrine.
And yet, how often do we see ourselves spouting doctrine instead of the Gospel message? And how strident do we get, when somebody presumes to question the "obvious" truth of our own particular doctrines?
Maybe it's time we took a harder look at the message we're actually sending....
You’ll have noticed that a lot of the religious debate here and elsewhere essentially proceeds from an assumption that everybody is more or less Christian in outlook — the purpose of debate is mainly to settle the doctrinal issues.
- - - - - -
Since I deal with the LDS, I do not proceed from that assumption. I proceed from the opposite one, that most people are NOT Christians until I am told (or shown) otherwise.
Perhaps it is my LDS background, and when I was LDS I THOUGHT I was a Christian, I SAID I was a Christian, but I really wasn’t and it wasn’t until I really surrendered to Christ that I saw the difference, that I assume most people ARE NOT Christian or are only nominal Christians.
The ‘doctrines’ I deal with are the basics, the person work and Nature of Christ (including nature of God). Since Mormons reject these basic Christian beliefs (and the Creeds) it is not a matter of minor doctrinal disputes.
Finally, when I was LDS, the Christians who got through to me were the ones that were combative, the ones who made me mad enough to try to ‘prove’ them wrong. What I discovered is they were right and I was wrong. So ‘combative witnessing’ DOES have its place.
That said, I approach the threads here prayerfully and my responses measured and gentle. However, that does not change the view that the LDS have that ANYONE who in ANY WAY disagrees with Mormons is ‘hateful’ mean, arrogant, a bigot, a bible basher, lying, taking things out of context, etc.
Even though I respond gently and in truth, I am falsely accused of being a hateful mean bigot all the time by the LDS who don’t like the MESSAGE, which is that the LDS church is contrary to the Bible.
My SIL has a shirt that says “I don’t have an attitude problem, you have a perception problem” and that is a rather accurate description. I am accused of having an attitude that is not there, because they perceive ANY question or comment about their history/doctrine/practices as being an ‘attack’.