Throughout Evangelism After Pluralism: The Ethics of Christian Witness, Bryan Stone critiques the traditional understanding of evangelism and presents a few key points: a) that differences between individuals still warrant respectful dialogue, b) evangelism should not be competitive in nature, and c) competing loyalties should be avoided at all costs. He lays the foundation of his arguments on the notion that the modern world is mainly comprised of three dominating characteristics: "empire, nation, and market.." (p.12) and that it is the unity of these characteristics that have led to the erosion of Christian life and the ability to bear effective witness to the gospel (pg. 12). Stone gives the reader a dichotomous portrayal of Christian living, declaring that it is either pluralistic or unified and implies that it is precisely the mere existence of multiple expressions of Christian living that render Christians into believing comparison and judgment are required to proclaim the gospel, which He states "diminish[es] …. respect for…. [the] other "and distorts the good news" (pg. 12).
Stone claims that the ethical foundation for traditional evangelism is focused on "conquering, defending, securing, and grasping" but should instead encompass "self-emptying, gratuitous, and pacifist" (pg. 140). The author recognizes that evangelism should have little to do with conversion and instead proposes a "witness oriented evangelism" (pg. 24), stating that "evangelism is not an attempt to produce conversions in the first place" (pg. 17). Furthermore, Stone proses that the dualism of evangelism and social action contain overwhelming problems that need to be addressed to understand the interaction between testimony and ministry better. He states that the "gospel is a new way of life" and salvation cannot be "passively received" but instead that evangelism should be equitable to a living ethics (pg. 9).
Stone then discusses the issue of empire and civil citizenship, stating the impossibility of proclaiming the gospel without being corrupted by the "influences of the imperial witness," referencing the portrayal of traditional evangelism stated previously. He describes interfaith dialogue as similar to a consumer's market, indicating that evangelism of old in a pluralistic environment is simply a way to make religion attractive to those willing to buy in or be duped into religion. The author describes his distress that evangelism after pluralism is constructed by "imposing the plurality of religions [to the] unity of the marketplace" (pg. 88), implying that the "marketplace rationality" of individual choice requires religion and its traditions to be promoted simply as basic commodities (pg. 91). He argues that this "culture" has been implemented into the church through a culture of "violence, war-making, and coercion" (pg. 76) and defends the idea that pluralism must go deeper "without accepting the terms of competition" (pg. 112).
Stone finished off by stating the difficulties in contextual pluralistic religions of other faith traditions and argues that plurality must be diverse in faith in order give witness to "what God has revealed to the world in Israel, Christ, and the church as the body of Christ is a way of living together-a rich tapestry of social patterns, habits, and practices that…reveal the beauty of God" (pg. 131). He condemns the conversion-based tradition of evangelism as a marketplace and instead portrays evangelism as inseparable from God's grace and to resist the temptation of consumerism and the imperial hold over worship, evangelism, and the ethics of religious conversion.
I believe that Pieris had only hoped to describe when discussing the ineffectiveness of the western missions and the problems surrounding interfaith dialogue, especially when discussing salvation via redemption. While Pieris describes the necessity of experiencing liberation, it is only through promoting justice and liberation without faith missing the difficulties in contextual pluralistic religions and faith traditions that Stone conveys. However, Pieris and Stone do acknowledge that context alone is insufficient as a model for "religion" and can instead serve as a way of understanding the "market" through which religion is "bought and "sold." Similarly, Adler might agree that interfaith dialogue as, evangelism currently stands, has prevented the growth of any true heartfelt conviction, perhaps even calling it "taste." Stone and Adler may agree that "religious faith can neither be proved nor established as true" (Adler, pg. 103) but evangelism incorporating "self-emptying, gratuitous, and pacifism" (Stone, pg. 12) may lead to a form of witnessing truthful to the gospel.

Throughout Stone’s book it is apparent that he is writing for individuals already familiar with the specific topics/themes at hand. However, His deconstruction throughout the book of key terms was greatly appreciated and while a bit officious, he writes with great depth and conviction.
Alongside Stone’s thorough deconstruction it is clear to the audience that Stone has gone out of his way to be inclusive of individuals coming from a great many starting points, especially when it comes to discussions of Western empire, evangelism, ethics, consumerism, and each of their roles in the Western Christian context. I greatly appreciate Stone’s insight into the premises of ethics concerning results-based evangelism namely, the influences of consumerism, marketplace rationality and religious colonization. While Stone is clear in His focus on Christian Ethics, I feel as though Stone’s idea of morality and what it means to be a moral Christian can be implied through His discussion surrounding some key components of evangelism (pg. 10).
Similarly, while I will critique some aspect of this later, Stone’s writing almost seems to require an active audience rather than a single reader. Each of his points are so linear in their conclusions that with incorporation of voices from the margins (lol) many of his premises can be greatly expounded and understood through communal dialogue.
I agree with Stone’s main premise that Evangelism as seen in the past simply does not provide individuals with the tools to receive the “good news.” His thesis is clear in stating that he hopes to continue to build relationships even throughout disagreement and does not want evangelism to equate to conversion. His premises in this regard are sound and his arguments are effective in portraying this thesis. I also enjoy his implication that evangelism has no requirements, no need for preaching, no need for convincing but instead simply living life as a witness to the gospel. There is no doubt that living a life of Christ and speaking about a life of Christ are vastly separated and I’m glad Stone does such a great job in clarifying those differences. Stone’s desire to move away from simply spoken rituals and move instead toward living a faithful life “grounded in the habits disciplines, stories… as the body of Christ before a watching world” (pg. 9) is something that all Christians should keep in mind.

Stone's continued use of ultimatums and either/or arguments poses a great task to the reader. Without much effort, the reader may be forced to Either accept Stone's premises regarding evangelism as wholesome, complete, and accurate or throw away Stone's argument entirely. His form of argument may be useful in a logic class whereby an Antecedent and Consequent must be affirmed or denied in a specific manner as to not agitate the gods of logic; however, when discussing witnessing, evangelism, and the gospel, it is the very nature of diversity and pluralism that require room for interpretation. That being said, Stone's fallibility is his strength as a reader willing to view his dichotomous arguments as extreme may be willing to live in the middle ground between them while using Stone's framework as a guide rather than law.
Time and time again, Stone left the reader a bit out of pocket concerning specific events or context/knowledge-dependent explanations. For example, Stone uses pluralism and unity a few times to describe similar premises and fails to distinguish some of the direct influences of the or "imperialism" on evangelism. Similarly, Stone discards the idea of "impirialism" completely without recognizing its usefulness or necessity (missing context as well).
Additionally, readers must accept that entering into this book; there are vague references and some confusing arguments without the proper context, which Stone does not always provide. Most notably, in chapters 5 and 6, while addressing the context of religious, military pluralism, Stone provides argument points as someone familiar with the issues to readers unfamiliar with the few phenomena presented.
Throughout the reading of Stone's book, I am often brought back to my childhood in the Spanish church whereby "evangelism" can be seen through the proclamations and warnings of Daniel and Revelations, of late nights filled with testimonies calling the youth into the church sphere and the older generations to compel their grandchildren back into the church. I remember the fear in the pastors eyes while discussing the diminishing numbers within the church and the forced tears as he gave his testimony… Stone discusses the ethics of evangelism but does not provide a framework when it comes to witnessing. Stone fails to recognize that testimony and witness have called "corporate evangelism" to the front line. Which "witness" will impact the most people? Which "witness" and which "testimony" secures the reproduction of faith such that at the end of the night, those in favor of witnessing will also be compelled to "witness" to others? Who will be compelled to evangelize? Who will spread the word of the gospel if not those who have already been witness? Stone dismisses the traditional understanding of evangelism in this sense but fails to recognize that evangelism without proclamation of the good news is simply a lifestyle choice and thus cannot be separated from one faith tradition to the next, only religious tradition. Action alone is ambiguous and readily interpreted through the eyes of the witness. Undoubtedly, the dismissal of verbal proclamation evangelism as a necessary form of evangelism is why he fails to identify and discriminate between Unity and pluralism completely. Because without stated separation, the difference between Unity and pluralism is no longer choice but perspective.