Evangelism Without Philosophical Apologetics

Unless you have previously discussed a philosophical matter with a person--and literally everything is philosophical--there is no point in just leaping into a conversation with someone about a grand idea without having started by discussing foundational matters.  If Christianity is true, evangelism, or discussing the gospel with others, is an act of grand significance.  Why then do so many Christians put no effort at all into even starting to evaluate the ideas they are putting forth and the ideas they might clash against on a level beyond two people just making random assertions out of prior beliefs they are just assuming?  At best, many Christians are oblivious or apathetic enough about what philosophical truths can be known to start evangelism or general philosophical conversations with a comment about Jesus instead of starting with self-verifying axioms and working up from there.

Contrary to what a typical evangelical apologist like William Lane Craig would suggest, there is no point or value in evangelism apart from an explicit context of rationalistic philosophy.  Evangelism is in this context just another random set of assertions by someone who is often unwilling or unable to think about deeper concepts without constant conversation.  If someone came up to you and said they have been visited by alien life, the only rational response at a mental level is to wonder about the epistemology of what they are saying, and some of the only conversational response that is not pointless involves broaching truths about logical possibility, epistemology, and the distinction between evidence and proof.  As a rationalist, I would recognize the story as logically possible if it did not involve any contradictions of itself or reason and refrain from belief while acknowledging any genuine evidence that comes to light.

Evangelism needs to be handled the same way as this or any other conversation where philosophy is more prominent: by both participants looking to reason in a purely rationalistic manner and not failing to see past mere words or personal persuasion one way or another.  How might a standard evangelical Christian respond to someone who tried to desperately bring them to the belief that there are extraterrestrial beings with a direct interest in our lives and did not even try to clarify anything about the epistemology or metaphysics of the situation beyond appealing to assumptions?  A rational person would respond to a Christian evangelizing apart from an already established context of rationalism in which a subcontext of apologetics has taken hold, not that either party needs the other to think about or reason out such things.

Anyone who tries to embrace any worldview at all outside of rationalism, meaning any irrationalistic or self-contradictory worldview is automatically false at the start, is a fool who cannot deserve to be listened to except for mockery and entertainment.  This true of someone who professes allegiance to Christianity or to any other compatible or incompatible worldview.  Only what is self-evident can serve as the foundation (logical axioms and one's own existence) and most evangelists try to avoid addressing the very core of epistemology and metaphysics except when pressed by others.  As James says about the body without the spirit (consciousness) and commitment without deeds, evangelism without apologetics--and apologetics in the constant shadow of rationalistic philosophy at that, a kind that does not pretend like what cannot be proven by pure reason is knowable--is dead.