Canagarajah Analysis

Decent Essays
There are a couple of authors that I agree with. I first would like to share why Canagarajah is the author who I mostly agree with before the other one. Her intention to write her statement was to have both evangelicals and non-evangelicals dialogue in the TESOL field. She mentioned that post-positivist scholars are tired of being stereotyped. On the other hand, believers feel rejected because they have pawned their attitudes and values to one way. Canagarajah offered on her statement what other authors did not. On her statement she did not lean to one particular side, Christian or non-Christian. Instead, she politely exposed both sides on the plate. She asked a number of questions to why do Christians hinder and do not attend non-Christian…show more content…
Both Johnston and Canagarajah had similar statements. He did a great job exposing both Evangelical Christians and non-evangelicals sides. The information provided is great evidence that both parties are suggested to reflect upon. He not only challenges others, but also the third readers, like me. He is correct when he says that Evangelical Christians should dialogue with those of other faiths or non-faith. Instead believers are no where to be found in the TESOL meetings and/or conventions. Both, Christians and non-Christians should participate on dialogues. These dialogues will benefit both sides because they will learn from each other. No longer will a brick wall divide them. Instead those who practice faith will have a lot to learn from those who do not practice a region. A few of these dialogue recommended by Johnston are: Exploratory dialogue and Conciliatory dialogue. These types of dialogues between two people are to hear each others opposite opinions. Through the interchanges neither will have or should have the intention to persuade the other one from his/her belief. This dialogue helps the parties with uncommon thoughts to overcome “ misconceptions and prejudices on either side” (p. 36). Undoubtedly, Johnson shows no favoritism to any of the parties, even though, “no set of issues is as explosive, controversial, emotional, and threatening as moral and religious disputes. None is more vital” (Purpel, 1989, p. 68 as cited…show more content…
He described great points with respect, empathy, and sincerity. However, I disagree with his confrontation questions against Christians who believe in the Almighty God. He says, “I have no inking why some people believe (I almost wrote, “choose to believe, “ but that would be to beg the question…in the existence of a supernatural creator of the world in which I live” (p. 21). His statement describing the importance of respect, empathy and sincerity can make a better world. But, how can creation not surrender to the Creator of the universe-the Almighty God. How can mere people have good deeds without knowing the one Who is good. I do not agree with Edge pointing fingers instead I would like to refer to him a quote, “Wishing spirituality would die away is not helpful”(Canagarajah, S, 2009, p.
Get Access