The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Author: Carver T. Yu
Date: 19.06.2010
Category: Truth & Pluralism
Editor’s Note: This Cape Town 2010 Advance Paper has been written by Carver T.Yu as an overview of the topic to be discussed at the Morning Plenary session on “Making the Case for the Truth of Christ in a Pluralistic, Globalized World.” Responses to this paper through the Lausanne Global Conversation will be fed back to the author and others to help shape their final presentations at the Congress.
Those of us who live in Asia have for centuries lived with the reality of cultural plurality in general and religious plurality in particular. Yes, we have lived with plurality, but not pluralism. Pluralism has never been an option. Whether you are a Confucianist, or Taoist, Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu, you have an unwavering conviction that what you believe and live by is truth leading to authentic humanity or eternal salvation, and that all other paths would lead at best to an unfulfilled life and at worst to perversion and suffering. Truth matters, for it has life consequences. While respecting others, you nevertheless see it as your responsibility to point them to the right path.
The pluralism in vogue today is entirely different. It is an ideology that proclaims that truth is a cultural construction valid only for the culture that constructs it. It has therefore no bearing on another culture or system of meaning. There is no truth that can claim to be truth for all. All truths are relative to one another. The pluralist pushes the point further from cultures to individuals. The individual is now presumed to be the ultimate ground of reality, the foundation on which meaning and values are created. The postmodern pluralist believes that each and every individual creates her own logic and makes her own rules in constructing her own world of reality and value. The individual is “autonomous” in the sense that she is the law to herself. As each individual constructs her own world, there can be, therefore, as many worlds as there are individuals, and each is merely a web of beliefs true only to the individual who weaves it. As these individually constructed worlds are each unique to themselves, they are therefore incommensurable to one another. So, despite all the rhetoric about dialogue, pluralism has rendered all dialogues to be unnecessary and futile.
At the same time, as truth is fabricated, it can be re-fabricated at will. It is therefore tentative and fluid, and has no lasting bearing on anything. In condemning all truths to be radically relative and tentative, pluralism has in effect silenced any proclamation of transcendent truth true for all human persons and cultures. In the name of condemning dogmatism, pluralism is nevertheless the most dogmatic of all ideologies as it will frame without hesitation any anti-pluralist concept of truth as dogmatism and exclusivism, and reject it out-right. Pluralism as such is the most virulent kind of monism—it is monism of indifference.
However, it does not take too much critical analysis to see that the pluralist is self-contradicting. In proclaiming pluralism, the pluralist tacitly claims that he stands on a vantage point towering above all cultures or all individuals so as to see their relativity. Yet, miraculously, the vantage point on which he stands is nevertheless absolute. How does he manage to do that? Purely by animal faith and dogmatic claim.
While trivializing truth and framing religious truth as oppressive, the pluralist unashamedly promotes the secularist version of truth, pushing the secular worldview to be true for all. Atheism is allowed to become the new religion and promoted as the embodiment of scientific rationality, objectivity, common sense and inclusiveness. It is now waging a war against religion in general and Christianity in particular with an unprecedented evangelistic zeal and hostility. The “Atheist Bus Campaign” in London is a good example. In June 2008, comedy writer Ariane Sherine proposed to advertise against the belief in God on London buses saying, “There is probably no God. Stop worrying. Enjoy your life.” Immediately money poured in, and within four days more than ₤140,000 was raised. The campaign has now spread to Canada. In a similar advertisement two kids are posted, each pleading not to be labeled as a Catholic kid or an Atheist kid—they want to be brought up neutral. In a very subtle way the campaign condemns parents for raising their kids with any conviction of truth. The monism of indifference is tightening its grip on our lives. Yet at the same time, books proclaiming atheism flood the market, with Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion making the biggest splash. It has been translated into 31 languages with more than 1.5 million copies sold. Joan Bakewell, a columnist for the Guardian, sounded forth the battle cry against religion in her praise of the book: “Religions have the secular world running scared. This book is a clarion call to cower no longer” (The Guardian, 23 September 2006). What is the battle all about? It is about taking back the right to define moral values for oneself over against any transcendent boundary. The real issue is how one’s life is to be conducted.
Such a secular ideology has consequences. The eclipse of transcendent truth has life implications.
Twenty-one years ago, just months before what happened in Tienanmen Square in Beijing on June 4, Liu Xiao Bo wrote an article about the tragedy of the Chinese people, in which he said, “The tragedy of the Chinese people is a tragedy of a people without God. When the light from the transcendent Other Side has become dimmed, the darkness of this side will easily come to be taken as infinite light.” 1. A society without the transcendent light would almost certainly absolutize itself and turn even its darkness into infinite light, as it has no recourse to resources beyond itself for self-critique. A society without the illumination of transcendent truth will sink into the darkness of its own corruption.
Truth has consequences in the personal dimension as well. At Amsterdam 2000, Dr. Ravi Zacharias shared his experience of defending the objectivity of moral truth to a group of Oxford students. When he finished, a student stood up and challenged him. He said, “Dr. Ravi, morality is purely emotive. ‘Right’ or ‘wrong’ expresses nothing more than personal preference in an emotional way.” Ravi responded, “If that were true, let us put it to a test. Let me put an innocent and helpless baby on this table and chop him up into three pieces with a big knife. Now would you not say that what I have done is wrong?” Calmly the student answered, “No, I would not say that. All I can say is I do not like it.” Ravi confessed that he was quite shocked. Alas, if I were there, I would have asked the student, “What if I put you on this table, ready to chop you up into three pieces, would you not say that what I am going to do is wrong and ought to be stopped immediately?” And if he said, “All I can say is, I do not like it,” then I would say, “I like it, I like it very much, and I happen to have the power to do it.” You know full well the consequences.
Without moral truth, might will become right. Tribal war is inevitable. Without the divine decree that the human person is made in the image of God, affirmed by the Creator to have absolute value and to be absolutely inviolable, why should anyone take the assertion that “all are born equal” seriously? What is the ground for such a belief, which is supposed to be the foundation of democracy? Do we believe this because emotionally we like it? Or do we simply will to believe it out of rational calculation because of self-interest or fear? What if Nietzsche is right, that we invent such hollow statements because we are weak—we are afraid to let the will to power take over, for we are afraid to face the fact that only the strong and mighty will survive? What ground do we have to refute Nietzsche? The statement is hollow if it is all human invention. Why should I believe that I was born equal to you, as obviously I am genetically endowed to be much smarter and stronger than you? The selfish gene metaphor should then take over, picturing the human person as an autonomous self, liberated from any obligation to any one other than oneself, being driven only by the logic of self-interest for self-perpetuation. Since human persons are not “born equal,” the smarter, the stronger and the richer should therefore have more votes in the political process.
If moral values are severed from their transcendent source, then the highest virtue will be nothing but pragmatic function. The value of a person lies entirely in his function in a process, the value of which is measured by his function in a bigger process. In our context, the reality is the global market controlled by global corporations. The value of the human person lies in her marketability or functionality in the market. The person is basically a tool or a commodity to others. Then people like Richard Posner would be absolutely right in telling us in his book, Sex and Reason, that there is no fundamental difference between prostitution and marriage. Marriage is basically long term prostitution. In marriage you have a long term arrangement for the exchange of services between couples, whereas in the case of prostitution, it is a spot-market relationship, where exchange is made by payment the prostitute can use to purchase services from others.
Right before our eyes we see the moral fabric of our social life being torn to pieces, and the human person being depersonalized into a commodity or a set of functions. The exile of transcendent truth will exact a heavy price on us leading to socio-cultural chaos and therefore immense suffering. We cannot but stand up to turn back the tide. We have to preach the truth of the Christian gospel at all costs.
© The Lausanne Movement 2010
Keywords: Truth, Asia, pluralism, plurality, culture, individualism, postmodernism, monism, secularism, atheism, consequences, moral values, pragmatism, power, chaos
Carver Yu has not Contributed any other Resources entries. To see other content that Carver Yu has Contributed, click here
Views: 64387
Comments: 158
Recommendations: 6
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | The Lausanne Global Conversation is powered by World Wide Open | What is World Wide Open?
Conversation Post Comment
United States
I like the writer’s last statement, “We have to preach the truth of the Christian gospel at all costs.” This reminds me of my ordination, where an old preacher pointed his finger at me and said, “Preach the truth. Some things are easier preached. The truth may be hard, but preach the truth.” In our world today, there are many teachings and thoughts that are easier to swallow than God’s truth. People like to hear about “many ways to God,” when the real truth is there is only one.
Without truth, anything becomes okay. If we think our world is somewhat messed up now, think about how it would be if no one was following the truth that comes from God. Great paper with some great examples for us to share and use. Thanks!
12.12.2011
United States
@ brucec:
Brucec you are right, there is only one way to God who is the father, and that is through Jesus the son, but I think that there are many ways to find Jesus. Make sure we don’t confuse people when we explain the truth about the way to God or salvation.
26.04.2012
United States
In John 3 while Jesus is talking to Nicodemus He says that the point of Him coming was not to condemn the world but to save it. Then He says that the people of the darkness would hate the light because it would shine on their dark deeds. (I’m paraphrasing here) This is the explanation. Why do atheists hate religion in America so much when we don’t tax them as the Europeans do? Because we get in the way of their decisions that they hope desperately no one will question. It sickens and saddens me that people who won’t get off of their couches to help another human being will spend money to advertise against those who do. "Cast down the crosses so they will stop telling us to help people" they shout. "We don’t want any of your bigotry" they yell as they smear excrement on themselves and then on the church altars.
The darkness will devour us all if it weren’t for the light. The deeds done in the dark must be brought to light. The people need to be shown that the light conquers all and is not to be feared but rejoiced in. For the light brings more joy and glory than anything that can be done in the darkness!
21.11.2011
United States
The Word of God declares and ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Truth does matter in our world today and we should see the Creator as the One who has given humanity the real truth to live by. In the creation of humankind, the Creator knew of our own biases, and yet He is Soverign enough to allow us to have our own free-will to make our own decisions. Decisions have consequences and we have to be careful that we are making the right choices. I like the illustration about the baby and the student, and became concerned about the student who did not see a life that was about to be taken away but only just seen the body of an individual. Thank you for the response of what if it was the student on the table. We often make decisions without concerning others because we become so self-centered. Truth does matter, as we all shall know the truth and the truth will set us free. Follow peace with all men and women and God will have the last words.
Reggie
11.07.2011
United States
"Right before our eyes we see the moral fabric of our social life being torn to pieces."
At this present time with so many pastors in American churches being caught with their pants down it’s no wonder why the moral fabric is being torn to pieces. If we are carriers of the "truth" and yet display actions that do not set us apart, how then are we able to add merit to our claim of the "truth"?
01.04.2011
Ukraine
@ PAHayes:
The "truth" never depends on up or down anybody pants. It is just excist. If anything or anybody can change the truth than it is not the truth. Becuse all of christians not act like saints did not metter that our God not Holy. I belive that we dont need to ask what is the truth. All people need to know Who is the Truth.
02.04.2011
Canada
@ Dmytro_B:
Dear B Dymtro:
I am afraid that I must take you to task in regard to your last statement “I believe that we don’t need to ask what is the truth. All people need to know Who is the Truth.” The statement, if it was not scribbled as one of the unthinking Christian mantras which is common nowadays, bespeaks of a denigration of doctrine. I know that doctrine has historically been and is now, has been abused for the purposes of intellectual and spiritual one-upmanship. However, I would suggest that its importance lies in giving guidance and wisdom in navigating the perilous paths of both temporal and spiritual life. True faith in Christ involves true faith in what He says and acting upon those truths.
02.04.2011
Ukraine
@ John-Hutchinson:
Greetings John!
When i wrote about the Truth in a big way i look on a story with the Pilate and Jesus. As one can ask what is the truth easy to pass by Who is the truth. With all highly positions and mind sets we better not regret to see Christ as the only Truth that God reviled.
02.04.2011
United States
@ PAHayes:
PHayes,
I am also a student at Gardner-Webb. Getting Masters in Divinty.
We as Christians are to tell the truth. what is truth? John 17:17says "sanctify them by the truth; the truth is your word." The truth then is God’s word the Bible.
09.04.2011
United States
@ Dmytro_B:
B Dmytro,
I appreciate your response. My comment was based on my concern that the world is not seeing people who are living by the truth. Therefore in order to counteract the increase of pluralism, we as followers of Christ must set ourselves apart as believers of the truth and live as such.
10.04.2011
United States
@ dunybec:
Dunybec,
I agree that the word is the truth. My original concern is how Christian American leaders’ actions in the last 5 years are affecting our moral image in society. How do we as future leaders recapture the many believers who fall prey to the alternatives in pluralism when they no longer believe in those preaching and teaching the truth?
10.04.2011
United States
@ PAHayes:
@All
We are not only called to have faith in (truly believe) God, we are also to communicate this belief and propogate the knowledge that we have. We will NOT be able to communicate truth if people look at our actions and they are counter to what we teach. This would place our teaching as truth when our actions are lies. We should not act in such a way because we are told to. We should act in such a way as to reflect what is in our heart. Our good deeds or actions are not to earn anything, but are rather reflections of gratitude and emulation.
11.04.2011
Mexico
I really enjoyed reading this article. I agree with the comment that Scripture should be included in it. But, it addresses boldly the root of the problem with pluralism.
Jesus is the ultimate truth and we are called to tell ir to the world.
02.10.2010
United States
@ Ana_M:
Becky US
Bravo on a good article. But we as the church should proclaim the truth; however, we are too concerned as to how it would look to the secular. I feel one mistake that we have made is being tolarent of other religions.
03.04.2011
United States
@ dunybec:
Dunybec and Ana,
I would love to get your input on a new post of mine concerning tolerance.
http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/conversations/detail/11861
04.04.2011
United States
Pluralism is an approaching problem that our societies are having to address. Over past generations we have seen various Christian stances attacked, but this attacks the very conception of truth. The idea that everything is relative is to free one of any responsibility of the consequences of their actions. The Word of God states that it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training (II Timothy 3:16). Pluralism is a ground attack to the validity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The truth will set us free and it is found in the Scriptures. #dmingml
18.10.2010
Guatemala
Excelente artículo. QUienes deseen conversar sobre LA MISION Y LA IGLESIA EN LA VIDA PUBLICA les invito a unirse a nuestro Grupo de Interes disponible en
http://conversation.lausanne.org/es/groups/join/1104/55048
Marco Cajas (Guatemala)
17.10.2010
United States
Thank you for this paper. The interaction between Dr. Zacharias and the student was a very chilling example of the connection between people rejecting God’s moral authority and the devaluation of human life. This made me think of the inseparable connection between loving God and loving our neighbors.
Jesus called us salt and light. I see this paper as a call to repentance. To the extent that the church has neglected the weak, treated a person as a number or some other object, or failed to embrace and value the truth, the church must take some of the responsibility for "socio-cultural chaos" in its setting.
16.10.2010
Egypt
I loved the ending that said: "Right before our eyes we see the moral fabric of our social life being torn to pieces, and the human person being depersonalized into a commodity or a set of functions."
This is so true.In many places on this planet, we see this as true , but when we are on the receiving end of harm, I think we will be searching again for the old moral fabric of our society that we have shredded by our own hands.
14.10.2010
Italy
Thank you for the thoughtful article. I specially appreciated the line "In the name of condemning dogmatism, pluralism is nevertheless the most dogmatic of all ideologies."
From my own context (Brazil - evangelism of university students) it seems that the hardest challenge has not been to debate logically against pluralism, but instead to encourage Christians to be confident and bold that they do hold the thruth of Jesus Christ. I have found Leslie Newbigin readings particularly helpful in that area.
Blessings!
13.10.2010
Netherlands
Like others, I liked the clear analysis this paper provides for plurality and postmodernist thinking.The different examples are revealing the shocking truth (sic) about current society’s common thinking.
It was probably not meant to be part of this paper, but I would have liked to see some more pointers towards ’solutions’: how do we respond? Just saying that we need to stand up for biblical truth is not enough, in my humble opinion. Actually, a statement like that has often caused more harm than good. As is pointed out in the first part of the paper, people are not receptive for ’objective truths’ anymore - and certainly not ’biblical truth’ in the classic understanding.
I would suggest that we might be closer to pluralists and postmodernists than we think.
First of all: in the gospel, truth is personal - very personal. Jesus Christ reveals himself as the truth. The most common criticism people have regarding Christianity is hypocrisy, where talk & walk are two different things. Interestingly, the word was invented by Jesus himself. His was the living truth because he lived out what he said. In this sense, truth and trust(-worthiness) join hands. Pointing out this definition of truth to pluralists will - in my experience - intrigue them.
Secondly, biblical truth is not a doctrine, nor a philosophy or a set of dogma’s - it is the actual and factual story of God with mankind. The gospel is about something that happened, as Anglican bishop N.T. Wright says. For me, this is not so much a reason to focus on apologetics, but rather a comfort: when people don’t want to accept these historical facts, than probably they simply do not want to know anything about the gospel anyway. The only thing that is left here is to pray.
And thirdly, while truth is not a prevailing question for many around us and certainly not the entry point to get the message of Jesus across, let us focus on those things that can serve as entry points. When we as followers of Jesus build relationships with not-yet-followers of Jesus (meaning: become friends, share lives), we will transfer much more truth than we could ever do by shouting on a street corner.
We can live out the truth ourselves by following Jesus. As we walk in his ’transcendent’ light, others will see it.
13.10.2010
Malaysia
Pluralism is a "self-centered" or "anthropocentric" version of the Fall - humans snatch to be a god sotaht they become the measure of everything. The end result is chaos. While we should be sentsitive to be false truimphalsitic, we could be humble and confidence to proclaim the truth of the gospel by living the live that is ocnsistent with the truth.
12.10.2010
Malaysia
We, the people who know the truth and convinced that it matters should have the motivation to bring the light of truth to a world suffer from moral bankruptcy because of its denial of absolute truth. However, sadly, it seems that at times churches care more to present itself as "political correct" than to proclaim the truth. We measure our success by how sleek and attractive our programs appear to the world and not by how faithful we proclaim the truth.
12.10.2010
Mexico
Thanks for the encouragement to stand for the truth of the gospel in the face of today’s paricular challenges to it. I am intrigued by the paragraph about the relationship between pluralism, secularism and atheism. At a philosophical level, consistent pluralism should relativise secularism just as it does religion, while atheism, particularly the aggressive new atheism of recent years, strives to impose its own absolute values and seems a strange child of relativistic pluralism. Do we need to make more of a distinction at this point between the fact of plurality and the ideology of pluralism? Perhaps the heightened plurality of our globalised world pushes towards secular culture as a lowest common denominator among people, driving an operational atheism that paves the way for its ideological counterpart, while at the same time generating the alternative response of ideological pluralism and its denial of absolutes.
10.10.2010
Singapore
Thanks for your paper which I enjoyed reading. Especially the story but Rev. Ravi’s experience.
It never fail to amaze me how a person is so blind to their inconsistences. Insisting that there is no such thing as absolute truth when in so doing, he is making an absolute statement.
We need to stand up to all the sweet little lies that is decieving the masses. i.e. all religions are the same... we are all basically good ... etc.
10.10.2010
Mozambique
Thanks for your paper and its challenge. I find it interesting how quickly some attempt to abandon the reality and nature of truth when addressing moral issues. They believe in the nature of truth in other areas of their life. Even those who embrace pluralism demand correct accounting from their bank and a correct diagnosis from their doctor. Yet when a moral or metaphysical question is raised, all is abandoned except their objection to a consistent view of the nature of truth in all areas of life including the moral. May the Lord help us heed Paul’s word’s “I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received” as we preach the gospel at all costs to effectively meet the challenge of exposing fraudulent pluralism
10.10.2010
Jordan
I totally agree that we should proclaim the "Truth" to a world full of relativity. Maybe some helpful questions here: what is relative to people today: behavior or values? Is it individual (subjectivsim) or cultural? Which culture is dependable: mine or others’? Are we talking about what is "Prohibeted", what is "Tolerated" and what is "ideal? Exploring the aforementioned questions could lead us into persuasive thoughts on relativism and the "how to" of presenting the Biblical Absolute Trut to the world.
10.10.2010
Jordan
I totally agree that we should proclaim the "Truth" to a world full of relativity. Maybe some helpful questions here: what is relative to people today: behavior or values? Is it individual (subjectivsim) or cultural? Which culture is dependable: mine or others’? Are we talking about what is "Prohibeted", what is "Tolerated" and what is "ideal? Exploring the aforementioned questions could lead us into persuasive thoughts on relativism and the "how to" of presenting the Biblical Absolute Trut to the world.
10.10.2010
United Kingdom
I found the distinction between plurality and pluralism which was really helpful.
Carver then points out the obvious, that pluralism constantly contradicts itself, talking of no truth, but trying to be an absolute truth; talking of respect but failing to listen to what others say. As has been said elsewhere, it’s important to remember that some of the ’new atheists’ like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are not themselves pluralists. They are clear that they are making truth claims about the way the world is, and denying the truth claims of the religious, including Christians. They close down debate through their dogmatic beliefs, but they are different to the old school pluralistic views.
So much of today’s world is pluralistic - you’re entitled to your own belief unless it affects my belief system, at which point, it can’t be true. We need to deal with this ’unintellectual’ pluralism which so many of the young people I work with are growing up using as their belief system by encouraging the Church as a whole to engage in relevant ways with this issue. If this isn’t dealt with then well-meaning evangelism is at best irrelevant and at worst damaging.
09.10.2010
Argentina
En este mundo plural y pluralista, habría que hacer una discriminación que no veo en el artículo entre la Verdad, el logos, aquella de la cual se nos prometió que nos haría libres, y la "verdad moral". Me parece que en el artículo están demasiado identificadas, y en mi opinión son bien diferentes. Hablar de moralidad no es lo mismo, de ninguna manera, que hablar de la Verdad (Cristo), quien nos hizo santos y libres con su muerte en la cruz. La "moralidad", según como se entienda, puede resultar en una cárcel de dogmas y preceptos de los cuales Cristo vino a liberarnos. La "moralidad" no es la regla de oro de la vida cristiana, sino Cristo. Cuidado. Al fin y al cabo, la "moralidad" efectivamente puede estar teñida de ropaje cultural. Cristo no.
Segundo punto: Creo en la Verdad, con mayúsculas, que es única, unívoca y singular. Pero también creo que no debemos olvidar que cualquier pretensión de aprehender esa verdad absolutamente de parte de seres humanos débiles y falibles es una empresa fracasada, y acaso una arrogancia. Nuestro acercamiento a la Verdad siempre va a ser zigzagueante, sólo un asedio de la verdad, un andar y retroceder, escribir y borrar, aprender ydesaprender. Día a día, en permanente y continua revelación. Pretender tener La Verdad lista, cerrada, completa y empaquetada, para defenderla puede que nos lleve el día de mañana a replantearnos si quizás algunas de esas verdades eran sólo ideas nuestras, y no La Verdad absoluta.
09.10.2010
United States
@ Eliana_Valzura_de_Gi:
Eliana,
Maybe you could clarify what you feel morality to be? Are you suggesting that morality is simply a human measurement and subject to cultural bias?
Thanks for the clarification.
09.10.2010
Argentina
@ Mojoe:
No. No estoy sugiriendo que "moralidad" es simplemente una cuestión cultural. Aunque sí estoy segura que algunas cosas que culturalmente no son consideradas dentro de los parámetros morales para una cultura (p.ej. estar las mujeres con el torso desnudo), para otras culturas son perfectamente aceptables. Lo que digo que la "moralidad" no es lo mismo que la "verdad". Cristo, la Verdad, es mucho más que moralidad. Si predicamos, predicamos a Cristo. No predicamos, o no deberíamos predicar, un catálogo de moralidad. La buena o mala moralidad no deberá ser nunca una moralidad heterónoma, sino autónoma, inscripta en el corazón por Cristo, como bien lo promete en su Nuevo Pacto.
Y digo también que la "moralidad", según quién sea que la predica y la impone, puede ser contraria a la libertad en Cristo. Justamente porque serán imposiciones heterónomas. Y todos sabemos, lamentablemente que se puede ejercer poder, violencia y opresión en nombre de Cristo.
La moralidad tiene que ver con el accionar libre y soberano del Espíritu Santo en las vidas. No con reglamentaciones impuestas.
Por eso creo que hay que hilar fino entre La Verdad (el Logos), única, unívoca y absoluta, y la verdad moral.
El objeto de nuestra evangelización es Cristo. No la verdad moral. De ella se encarga él operando desde dentro del corazón transformado por su poder.
09.10.2010
United States
@ Eliana_Valzura_de_Gi:
For the vast majority of what you are saying, I agree with. Christ is what we teach and He/Truth is freeing, but this seems a little esoteric. How would you suggest communicating this idea to someone who is predisposed against Christianity? In virtually all cases, atheists (for example) see Christianity as inherent to rules, regulations, and past travesties and I have seen a dramatic increase in the need to include more logic when ministering to them. The very idea of having them understand ultimate truth and freedom, when they believe the polar opposite, seems a little more complex.
To rephrase the question, how would you suggest communicating to someone with these beliefs?
09.10.2010
Argentina
@ Mojoe:
No entiendo por qué resulta "esotérico" plantear que hay que predicar a Cristo, que es la Verdad, predicando la gracia, la aceptación y el perdón irrestricto YA obtenido por él en la cruz. No hay necesidad de agregar "moralidad" a nuestra predicación de Cristo. El es la única moralidad necesaria.
Cuando las personas conocen a Cristo, conocen la verdad, y la verdad los hace libres. Eso dice su palabra.
Ese "hacerlos libres" implicará en cada caso el accionar del Espíritu Santo en la transformación de las vidas. Pero eso es posterior. Estaríamos hablando, más bien de una tarea de discipulado y no de evangelización, en la que la persona advertirá la "llamada al seguimiento", y sabrá deslindar entre la "gracia cara" y la "gracia barata".
Me parece que a veces queremos nosotros mismos hacer lo que es obra exclusiva del Espíritu Santo.
La moralidad no salva. Salva Cristo, salva la gracia. Y la gente está sedienta de gracia, no de códigos morales.
Mezclar la Verdad con la verdad moral e identificarlas como si fueran lo mismo, me parece, es identificar la ley con la gracia.
09.10.2010
United States
@ Eliana_Valzura_de_Gi:
Thank You.
09.10.2010
Argentina
@ Mojoe:
Gracias a ud. por compartir conmigo. Que Dios lo bendiga
09.10.2010
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don’t have an account, you can sign up now (it’s free and easy!).