More misrepresentation: A response to Behme and Evans 2015

•Criticises Evans 2014 for its lack of theoretical ecumenism.•Distinguishes content from rhetoric in Behme and Evans 2015.•Shows that the arguments in Behme and Evans 2015 are weak or non-existent.

This response to Behme and Evans (2015) points out that understanding and correct representation of perspectives to be criticised is crucial for any kind of engagement. It then sequentially examines the points raised and tries to distinguish the content of the argument from its surrounding rhetoric. It concludes that there is a paucity of the former and an abundance of the latter.