Story

Vous n'avez pas encore de compte ? Inscrivez-vous dès maintenant. C'est gratuit !

The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network

Le Cap 2010 - Thèses préliminaires

La vérité compte : défendez la vérité

Auteur: Carver T. Yu
Date: 19.06.2010
Category: Vérité et pluralisme

Evaluation (9)
  • Currently 4.00/5
Favoris (5) Recommander

Traductions

Traductions disponibles:

L'original est en anglais

Note de l’éditeur : Cette communication préliminaire pour Le Cap 2010 a été écrite par Carver T.Yu pour servir de synthèse du sujet qui sera discuté lors de la session plénière du matin sur « Plaider en faveur de la vérité de Christ dans un monde pluraliste et globalisé ». Vos réponses à cette communication, par le biais du Forum mondial du mouvement de Lausanne, seront transmises à l’auteur et à d’autres pour les aider à peaufiner leur présentation finale pour le congrès. 

Ceux d’entre nous qui vivent en Asie sont depuis des siècles confrontés à la réalité de la pluralité culturelle de manière générale, et de la pluralité religieuse en particulier. Oui, nous connaissons la pluralité, mais pas le pluralisme. Le pluralisme n’a jamais été une option. Que vous soyez confucianiste, taoïste, bouddhiste, musulman ou hindou, vous avez la conviction inébranlable que ce que vous croyez et vivez est la vérité qui vous conduit à une authentique humanité ou au salut éternel, et que tous les autres chemins mènent au mieux à une vie d’insatisfaction, et au pire à la perversion et à la souffrance. La vérité compte, car elle a des conséquences à vie. Tout en respectant les autres, nous considérons néanmoins qu’il est de notre responsabilité de leur indiquer le bon chemin à suivre. 

De nos jours, le pluralisme en vogue est totalement différent. C’est une idéologie qui préconise que la vérité est une construction culturelle uniquement valable pour la culture qui l’élabore. Elle ne peut donc pas avoir d’incidence sur une autre culture ou un autre système de signification. Il n’y a pas de vérité qui puisse prétendre être vérité pour tous. Toutes ces vérités sont relatives les unes par rapport aux autres. Les pluralistes poussent cela au-delà des cultures et l’appliquent aussi aux individus. Désormais, l’individu est présumé être l’ultime base de la réalité, le fondement sur lequel toute signification et valeur sont basées. Le pluraliste postmoderne affirme que tout individu crée sa propre logique et établit ses propres règles pour construire son monde personnel de réalités et de valeurs. L’individu est « autonome » dans le sens où il représente sa propre loi. Si chaque individu construit son propre monde, il peut donc y avoir autant de mondes qu’il existe d’individus, et chacun de ces mondes n’est qu’une toile de croyances qui ne sont vraies que pour l’individu qui la tisse. Ces mondes individuellement élaborés étant tous uniques, ils sont donc incommensurables les uns pour les autres. Ainsi, malgré toute la rhétorique concernant le dialogue, le pluralisme a rendu tout dialogue inutile et futile. 

De même, si la vérité se fabrique, elle peut donc être recréée à souhait. Elle est donc provisoire et variable, et n’a pas d’incidence durable sur quoi que ce soit. En condamnant toutes les vérités à être totalement relatives et provisoires, le pluralisme a en effet réduit au silence toute proclamation de vérité supérieure qui serait vraie pour l’ensemble des êtres humains et des cultures. Au nom d’un dogmatisme condamnateur, il se trouve que le pluralisme est néanmoins la plus dogmatique de toutes les idéologies car elle qualifie sans hésitation tout concept anti-pluraliste de la vérité comme étant du dogmatisme et de l’exclusivisme, et ainsi le rejette en bloc. Ce genre de pluralisme est le monisme le plus virulent : c’est un monisme de l’indifférence. 

Français Translation by: LGC_Translation
A propos des fonctions multilingues | Suggérez une correction de traduction

Mots-clés: la verite

Conversation Poster un commentaire

 << Previous  1 2 3 4  5  Next >> 
Traduction automatique:
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Moloki_Motaung (1)  
Lesotho

The article is very interesting as it portrays the thinking among largely the educationally enlightened. It is quite tragic that pluralism will go unchallenged. Through the vessels that He has chosen, God is capable to argue for the Truth as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. While the pluralist has made his position clear, another greatest challenge lies in the supposedly many different ways of understanding or defining the Christian belief. It would seem any group, or even individuals feel that they have a right to interpret and practice Christianity as they way they perceive it. Is pluralism rife among Christians?


19.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 3 J'aime Je n'aime pas Gottfried_Muller (4)  
Allemagne

Dear Carver ,
I aggree with almost everything you wrote in your very valuable article. Let me just add some observations I am making as a european christian. Yes, there is a huge danger in pluralism. But the reaction of many christians (at least in the western world) is almost as problematic as the danger itself. Many seem to think that the appropriate answer to militant pluralism is militant dogmatism. The ideology of pluralism demands unquestioned diversity as a rule. This scares many, not only christians. There’s a huge debate going on in the societies of Europe about the multi-cultural future of the european society. Many advocate it, seeing it as the only option. Others argue against it, trying to prevent it. But seen realistically there is no other option. We already are a society with all sorts of cults and cultures, religions and beliefs, opinions and attitudes all blending into one another.
Maybe, as christians, we could understand (and somewhat appreciate) pluralism as a desperate attempt to find a kind of unity within this huge diversity. And here’s the opportunity for us as christians. Too often we seem to misunderstand unity as similarity. That’s where many of our struggles within the church come from. But I think that’s a big misunderstanding of the picture of the church the New Testament is drawing. Paul seems to argue for a radical diversity within the church, inspired and bound together by the Holy Spirit, for instance in 1. Cor 12. If we could understand pluralism as the secular attempt to find unity within the diversity of mankind, something only God can accomplish, then, as the church, we have the answer for one of the most urgent questions of mankind these days.
Let’s keep in mind that the truth, the New Testament speaks about, is not an abstract dogma, but a person: Jesus Christ. You can see the truth in action. Truth speaks and listens. You can interact with her. So we as christians don’t have to win all the philosophical discussions. We just have to live, act and speak out truth, be one while embracing diversity, loving the total otherness of the others, while knowing that we’re all fruit from the same tree. I think this must be very convincing for every secular person who takes pluralism for granted.


17.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Joseph_Paul_Cadariu (5)  
États-Unis
@ Gottfried_Muller:

Plurality is Europe’s dilemma.  That may be one of the reasons for the empty cathedrals which have become museums.  What kind of "diversity" doe you feel Paul is championing?  You suggest we should "embrace diversity, while appreciating the total otherness of others."  I’m not sure what you mean.


Jesus, our Christ, stated that He is the way, the (only) truth, and the life, and no man (no one) comes to the Father except by (through) him."  To me, that’s pretty clear!  I don’t see where plurtalism fits into the Lord’s statement.


Loving, accepting, conversing, sharing and serving all peoples is core value of all Christians (or should be), but witnessing Christ and winning others to Him is the goal, isn’t it?


17.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Gottfried_Muller (4)  
Allemagne
@ Joseph_Paul_Cadariu:

I aggree. I’m not advocating pluralism. And I’m certainly not saying that there are other ways to God beside Christ. My point may be overemphasized, but what I tried to say was: the answer to pluralism is not similarity. There is diversity within the body of Christ - One God, one Lord, one Spirit and many gifts (1Cor 12). In sensing the danger of pluralism (not plurality as Carver made very clear), we tend to turn to similarity and not unity. I believe, the Holy Spirit is not only the spirit of unity, but also the spirit of diversity within the body of Christ. Cape Town 2010 will be an example of this. We should celebrate this diversity and make it fruitful for the kingdom of God.


That’s all I’m saying.


17.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Joseph_Paul_Cadariu (5)  
États-Unis
@ Gottfried_Muller:

Thanks for your response.  I’d still like to have clear what you mean by diversity in the body, and the Holy Spirit being the spirit of diversity, and how that diversity relates to pluralism.  


17.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler -1 J'aime Je n'aime pas Jim_Harries (-3)
Kenya
@ Joseph_Paul_Cadariu:

I would like to share a few thoughts in response to this question from Paul.


I think the issue is narrowness as against openness as against ‘plurality’ as you have defined it.


I think one of our problems in Europe is as follows: the reformation began to build a theology on the back of certain ‘reason’ other than that of RC. Ongoing advances in academics having somewhat undermined that ‘reason’ have left protestant believers with a faith without all of its philosophical supports. Different ‘versions’ of evangelical faith (Methodist verses Baptist verses Pentecostal etc.) are based on the application of different kinds of ‘reason’. Hence, outsiders see us divided over issues that shouldn’t be dividing us, in ways that aren’t strictly Scriptural but philosophical, if you like.


A problem that arises from attempts to overcome this dividedness, is that it tends to come out as being ‘liberal’. Post-modernism however offers opportunity for a unity rooted in true faith and requiring much commitment, which I take Gottfried to be referring to.


In my own view, this does require a route back to unity which is in some ways a route back to RC to allow a plurality of Christian expression under a unity of faith, and / or a giving up of some of our denominational peculiarities in the interests of Christian unity; and in turn in the interests of serious mission.



17.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Gottfried_Muller (4)  
Allemagne
@ Jim_Harries:

Thanks, Jim, you’re really helping me out here. It’s a bit of a too complex subject for me to pin it down in English.


17.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Shannon_L (0)  
Canada
@ Gottfried_Muller:

Thank you Gottfired for you response.  I understand what you are trying to say.  I think we need to define Plurality and diversity.  From what I gathered from the article was that plurality connects with truth being relative - there are many truths.  This as you pointed out in Corinthians there is only One God, One Son and One Holy Spirit, therefore, one Truth.  Yet God’s community is diverse.  People from all walks of life, different experience with God and in that we make up this beautiful community of God, not the same but diverse bonded together by the One Truth of God and the Gospel message.  That’s at least how I see it. 


I’ve grown up in a more conservative tradition and it wasn’t until I met people from different denominations and countries that my view of the vastness of God expanded and I saw the diversity of His Kingdom and yet the oneness of whom He is.  It’s rather beautiful.


Yet it is being lost in the conglomeration of pluralistic beliefs, that God is not the only way.  We need to love everyone, but we need to find the balance of love and standing on the Truth of God which will speak volumes to non-believers.


You are right, we cannot fear it.  We must be loving and bold in communicating the truth.  In this day and age, we are all being watched and this is where we as Christians need to be aware that our actions must coincide with our words.  It is here that people are getting mixed messages.


17.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 1 J'aime Je n'aime pas Gottfried_Muller (4)  
Allemagne
@ Shannon_L:

Thank you, Shannon. That’s exactly what I tried to say.


You know, I’ve been to the Lausanne Forum 2004 in Pattaya/Thailand. When I saw all those folks from different cultures and nations worshipping, I initially went: ’Wait a second. Is the way they do it even biblical?’ And then in the next instant I thought: ’What are you worrying about? They celebrate Jesus. Relax and enjoy it!’


18.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas ChloeRoberts (0)  
Royaume-Uni

Thank you for this fascinating article.

I’m deeply impacted by this topic the more i learn about it, and i agree with many other people in this conversation who are calling for a balance between an increased focus and education to Christians on this topic, and a need not to over-emphasize it at the same time.

Also, i’m very excited, like one or two other writers, at the incredible opportunities it gives us for the gospel. Perhaps an increased education on the matter with the focus being more on the end product of our evangelism would be really helpful.

It is disturbing indeed at how much this thinking is sub-consciously entering the church and even our own worldviews...so surely some level of bringing this to the fore is increasingly essential. I work with young people who are crying out for truth and i long to be better equipped at sharing it, and in a relevant way to them in their culture.

I heard once that we tend to work in three-year generational cycles: the first puts up with something, the second accepts it and the third celebrates it. I’m praying for a break in this cycle in regards to the apathy and pluralism of postmodernism.


17.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Jim_Harries (-3)
Kenya

My response: That is it. That is the challenge that we Christians are now facing. The ‘modern’ was a lie; that there was objective truth out there. There isn’t, in the scientific sense, … but of course there is in (subjectively speaking) the theological sense. It is ‘religion’s’ hiding behind science that has now brought us the difficulties.

That is, a few years ago everything that was respectable was science. So, in order to claim respectability, Christianity in the West had to make out that it was scientific. Now science has been blown out of the water, we have egg on our face.

But, of course the Gospel has never been science. It has always been greater than that. It is about GOD. Wow. Then we ask; what about the character of God? … well have a look at the Scriptures. It is not a scientific manual. It is full of stories. That’s God …

The question then is: do you believe? Many of us lack in belief. We are short on belief, etc. That’s what the world faults the church on. Not our ‘logic’ – because they have no better logic either. Secularism is a smoke screen.

Many of my articles are post-modern oriented (http://www.jim-mission.org.uk/articles/index.html ) and see also www.vulnerablemission.com I have a particular article that I have written in respect to post-modern mission. This article is shortly to be published in Exchange (Brill). Anyone wanting a copy though, please let me know – jim@vulnerablemission.com .


12.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 1 J'aime Je n'aime pas Carver_Yu (9)   
Chine
@ Jim_Harries:

Dear Jim,


Thank you for your response. I would not allow our theological perception of reality to be labelled as "subjective". Ours is what is truly objective, objective in the most holistic sense. Scientific world view has its objectivity, but it is objectivity in abstraction, taking a slide of objective reality and blows it into a totally out of proportion manner and claim it to be the only objective reality to be recognized. Many scientists are more humble. there are those who are naively "scientistic", making science into an ideology. It is science as ideology that has been blown out. I still believe in science, in objective reality as discovered by science.


Carver


14.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Jim_Harries (-3)
Kenya
@ Carver_Yu:

Hi Carver, I think I can agree with you. Plenty of challenge in all that - to make God known. Thanks.


15.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Shannon_L (0)  
Canada

I find this topic very interesting.  I remember discussing this in college back in 1998.  The idea that truth is relative and dependant on the person is scary. 

I have found that adults today are very pluralistic and are attempting to raise their children in a religious vacuum is sad.  My cousin feels that the most effective way to allow a child to make their own choice is to prevent all influences of any religion or though process to sway them.  She feels that any type of education in a religion is propaganda and should not be used to raise children.

I work with young people, many of which come from broken homes and have lived through more tragedy then I’ll ever know.  They are tired of the pluralism and inconsitencies that life has brought them.  They soak up Truth.  They are looking for something real, tangible that will help put life back into their situation.  

If we are not careful we will find a geneartion of children who have not witnessed faith in action.  Who are not able to understand the love of God and the scripture because it has never been introduced to them.  

The young people I encounter today have their moral compass mixed up. Because they have been raised in a pluralistic society they have a difficult time living in a community environment that holds true to a set of beliefs and in a healthy loving environment. 

Pluralism has not done these kids any good.  There seems to be a fear of absolute truth.  I think it’s because we have to learn to work within it rather then shaping truth to how we want to live. 


14.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Okike_Offia (0)  
Nigéria

You description of the challenge is succinct and spot on. It is a universal challenge. As followers of Christ we have responsibility not only to stand up for the truth in defence, we must teach it to our children, and all within our sphere of influence. In my country some of the greatest erosions and denial of truth is from the pulpit by people who ought to know better. We need the wake up call.

Okike Offia

Nigeria


14.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas I_Strat (1)  
Canada

I appreciate this paper on truth and pluralism.  The ideas are framed quite clearly and logically.  God’s truth matters and we must believe it, obey it, and speak it.  His truth leads to freedom in the context of pluralism as in the case of Jonah on the ship to Tarshish.  His truth leads to salvation in the context of pluralism as in the case of Dionystus in the meeting of the Areopagus with the Apostle Paul.  I am not totally convinced that "pluralism has rendered all dialogues to be unnecessary and futile."  This gives too much of the impression that any attempt to share the Christian faith is useless.  There are many other factors in sharing the gospel that is not on the cognitive level.  The Spirit of God is not bound by intellectual stereotyping.  We cannot change the tsunami of pluralistic ideals that have hit us, but we can be wise in knowing how to use the truth God has given us to ride the waves of change that surrounds us.


25.08.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Carver_Yu (9)   
Chine
@ I_Strat:

Dear Brother Kai,


I too do not believe that any dialogue is futile and unnecessary. That diolgue is futile is the logical conclusion of pluralism, but we happen not to believe such an ideology, so to us, dialogue is possible and necessary if we are all fellow travellers in the quest for truth. Thanks for your comment.


Carver


12.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Jeff_Korum (0)  
Ghana

I thought the paper was well written, and I appreciated the distinction between pluralistic and pluralism. However, I thought his applications and illustrations were very Western. I live in Ghana, which is pluralistic, but only a small percentage of the people identify with atheism/secularism. Though Western influence is tangible, people are still religious and more communalistic than individualistic. So the comment that pluralism descends from the culture to the individual is not necessarily true. I would like this paper to reflect that pluralism is not synonymous with a secularism.


02.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Carver_Yu (9)   
Chine
@ Jeff_Korum:

Brother Jeff,


Thank you for your comment. You are right that my paper seems ot be more relevant to Western context. However, I write as someone in Asia which has been hit by globalization or globalization of the market like a tidal wave. In our Confucianist society, both in Hong Kong and in China, divorce rate is fast catching up with USA, over 40%. This was totally unimaginable 20 years ago. The impact of postmodern liberalism in Aisa is great and far reaching. I bet the same sort of impact is going to Africa.


I will however take your comments into consideration in reshaping my paper.


Carver 


12.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Bradford_Greer (1)  
États-Unis

The paper is well written and identifies pluralism as a significant problem in the secular west and in those Asian countries where secularism has a strong influence. I have a bit of trouble with the conclusion: that people need to "preach the truth of the Christian gospel at all costs". What does this mean? Does this mean that we are to take a hard stance for truth and get into "debates" on moral absolutes? That may work in some places. However, I have found that representing Christ effectively requires that we be sensitive to the person and the context. Should we not first hear the non-Christian narrative that the person has accepted. Once we have heard, we can begin to speak about and live out the Christian counter-narrative. If we recognize that people may have valid objections to Christianity as it has previously been lived out, and we are sensitive to those objections, then we can express the Christian narrative in our life and words in ways that are compellingly attractive. The movie "As it is in heaven" can sensitize us to one secular narrative’s objections to the Christian faith. I think that many of us would share those same objections if that was the "Christianity" that was lived out before us. In contrast to that secular narrative, the beauty is that within the narrative of the gospel is the power of God for salvation, it is absolutely transformational, for everyone who believes.


08.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Carver_Yu (9)   
Chine
@ Bradford_Greer:

Dear Brother Bradford,


Thank you for your comment. My response to you is the same as my response to Danda. I will considern rephrasing the last sentence. You are right that sensitivity is very important. In Asia, for centuries different religous communities live together peacefully. they manage to do that because of deep mutual respect and sensitivity. They live out what they believe as truth. Validation of truth is in their life rather in winning the arguments for truth. That is perhaps something we Christian have to think more deeply. I will spell out this thought more clearly in my paper. Thanks.


Carver


12.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Ishak_Sukamto (1)  
Indonésie

Is there the Truth of is there NO truth ? First setup the premise then elaborate it.

If there is No Truth then conversation regarding truth in the sense of pluralism or any other ‘ism’ has no significance anymore.

If there is Truth, how could we understand that Truth ? Could we arrive to that Truth ? Could we embrace the Truth become ours ? What is the prolegomena of that Truth ? Is an explanation of Truth equal with the truth itself ? 

From History we see so many ‘Truth interpreter”  had been trying to understand, explain, convince the Truth and as such falling in distorting conception what Truth means. Truth has been reduced to the proportion of conceptual reason. In Platonism, is reduced to unity, in Aristotelianism , is reduced to substance , in Hegel become absolute spirit, in Kant become a conceptual thinking  .Heidegger said that we have neglected the Truth itself and has fallen in oblivion. The Truth could not be achieved, unless the Truth Reveals itself. ( John D Caputo ‘HEIDEGGER AND AQUINAS, An Essay on Overcoming Metaphysics, p-2 )

‘I am The Way, The Truth and The Life ‘ , Jesus Said. 

The Truth is not according of what people say of the Truth, about the Truth, but what the Truth states, proclaims, declares, and Reveals about HIMself.


09.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Carver_Yu (9)   
Chine
@ Ishak_Sukamto:

Dear Brother Ishak,


You are absolutely right. Truth can only be validated by Truth itself, for if Truth were to be validated by anything other than itself, that other thing would be more foundational as truth than Truth itself. If we were to stand before Truth and ask Truth to porve that it is indeed Truth, Truth has no recourse but to validate itself by and through itself.


For those who rpoclaim Truth, the validation is in the reality of Truth manifested in the proclaimer as someone who is indeed walking in the the Way, living out Life as it should be, and manifesting Truth as one being in Truth.


Thank you,


Carver


12.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas David_Allen_Bledsoe (3)  
Brésil

I greatly benefited from the reading of your article. I believe it will be a most fitting paper to begin our week at Lausanne III. As we read the Scripture, pray to God the Father through Jesus, and reaffirm such documents as the LC, all of these activities demand that we agree on a set of critical absolutes that are not open-ended.  Being reminded of the absolutes of a moral, eternal God, humankind’s need of the Gospel, the specific role and nature of the church in a pluralistic culture require deliberate reaffirmations that should not be superficially assumed.

You show what is at stake in the pluralism/truth debate. Truth does indeed matter; the Gospel stands on the truth of Scripture and the person of Christ that it reveals.


10.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Carver_Yu (9)   
Chine
@ David_Allen_Bledsoe:

Dear David,


Thank you for your comment. The phrase "at all cost" indeed may give the impression of being aggressive or even confrontational. I’ll consider how to rephrase the expression.


Carver


12.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Carver_Yu (9)   
Chine
@ Carver_Yu:

Dear David,


Sorry for confusing your comment with that od Danda’. My response to you was meant for Danda. Sorry.


Your comments is most encouraging to me.


Carver


12.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas danda (3)  
Australie

Thank you for your paper, it is crisp and concise.

Your conclusion is that we have to preach the Truth of the Christian Gospel at all costs.

We should always ask ourselves how would Jesus tell them about the Truth? What would He do?

We need first of all to pray for the person that we are trying to reach, that the Holy Spirit will open his mind and heart to grasp what he hears. And then pray that the Lord will empower us to be bold and gracious when we present the Truth of the Gospel.


10.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Carver_Yu (9)   
Chine
@ danda:

Dear Danda,


I meant to respond to your comment when I sent it to Brother David Bledsoe. I take your concern as we should preach the gospel at all cost. I’ll rephrase the last sentence.


Carver


12.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 2 J'aime Je n'aime pas Jia_Min_C (2)  
Singapour

Thank you for the thought-provoking article.

Though it’s alarming how the Atheist Bus Campaign in UK was successful and able to draw so much support, it’s encouraging to know how the local Christian community responded actively.

In response to the Atheist Bus Campaign, a group of believers organised their own bus campaign with the ad, "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian party and enjoy your life." There were also Christians who did not stay silent but spoke out against the atheist bus ad messages.

These efforts, though seemingly small, do bring across a strong challenge for Christians to be bold and stand up for truth wherever we are.


09.09.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 1 J'aime Je n'aime pas Notice (2)
Jamaïque

I am challenged and encouraged by this article.  It is so easy to abandon the truth of God’s Word in an age of competing ideologies.  Biblical truth is the foundation for private and public morality and withouth this each individual and society is guided by emotive likes and dislikes. 

You make an excdllent point in arguing that secular thinkers have placed relativism on the throne and make it absolute.  At the centre of this relativist philosophy is the absence of God.  The absence of God shifts the argument from seeking to exist in a plural society to embracing pluralism.  Pluralism is not simply having a civil dialogue but rather the sacrificing of absolute biblical truth on the altar of relativism. 

The struggle that many of us encounter in the western world is that the voice of relativism is strong, forceful and well funded.  Those who live by the absolute truths of God’s Word are made to appear archaic and redundant.  This artlicle is there a source of encouragement to us as we continue in the battle to uphold truth.


30.08.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 1 J'aime Je n'aime pas johnfranklin (1)  
Canada

Joseph:  as one interested in this thread of conversation - I want to offer a brief response to your comments.  Your concern for poor and hungry children is a concern all Christians should share.  No one in this conversation would suggest for a moment that these are matters to be shared with and communicated to destitute children.

What concerns me about your comment is that it seems to miss the great panorama of needs in the world - the list is long indeed.  Paul made it clear that he would become all things to all people that he might by all means win some.  He took time with the philosophers on Mars Hill (Acts 17).  There is a need for witness among those who think and write about these quesions of postmodernism and how we understand truth.    Ideas have consequences - and we should not underestimate the power of ideas to impact the world and to have a ripple effect on who gets fed and who doesn’t, who gets medical attention and who doesn’t. who earns a good wage and who doesn’t, who is allowed to speak and who isn’t. 

We need voices in these conversations that operate from Christian sensibilities and gospel values.  There is - as Carver has responded room for both gestures of compassion and thoughtful contending for how best to understand who we are and what is worth believing - these are not incompatible. There are gifts differning and callings that are different - we do well to respect those God-given difference and callings that together we might be a strong kingdom presence in the world.

John Franklin


16.08.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Joseph_Paul_Cadariu (5)  
États-Unis

How do you explain Post-Modern Pluralism, relativism, et al to a hungry child in Central Africa, or a homeless person in Los Angeles, or to the families of victims of the Indonesia Tsunami?  We can spend the rest of our lives, until the Lord comes (He is coming!), beating the intellectual bushes of Oxford, debating atheistic scholars, and creating academic jargon, but shouldn’t we place our greater efforts where there are the greatest needs?

What was the Master Teacher’s strategy?


16.08.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 1 J'aime Je n'aime pas Carver_Yu (9)   
Chine
@ Joseph_Paul_Cadariu:

Thank you for your comment. As to your query, I would simply say, I cannot and should not try to explain to a hungry child in Central America about Postmodern relativism. There is no need to. I would try to address to his/her hunger as much as I can. Incidentally, I have just completed a declaration with my colleagues about the christian stance in regard to minimum wages in Hong Kong. I also minister with my wife to a congregation in an area characterized as the human dumping ground.


There is a time for responding to hungry children or the destitute, but there is also time and need to respond to intellectual challenges which would capture the mind and soul of our young. The two are not mutually exclusive. I happen to be someone who have been trying to bring the two together in my ministry. The intellectual challenge is as real as poverty in our society. We can deal with one and ignore the other. that is why the church needs different gifts and the heart of partnership, affirming one another in what we are doing.


Sincerely,


Carver


16.08.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Clive_Parnell (1)  
Royaume-Uni

Thanks for these thoughts on truth. It is illuminating and thought provoking.

In the Uk many talk about social consensus. How does society decide what is true and acceptable?

Is it based on feelings? emotions? if so then we are in trouble. People will change like the wind.

in reality many people don’t like truth as being relative. It is a concept taught in arts based subjects and I find many students have not thought this though (as in the example of the oxford student).

The question of absolutes is also a changing feature in the UK. I spoke with people recently who spoke about absolutes only in the physical.

In other words we can both agree that the chair in front of us can hold our weight but not on moral issues.

How do people come to any understanding of truth?

I think there is a real challenge to help people see the folly of such views. There are relational implications involved in no transendent truth and the individualistic culture will pervade if it persists.

Thanks for quoting Ravi, that is a good one to remember.


12.08.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas Clive_Parnell (1)  
Royaume-Uni

Thanks for these thoughts on truth. It is illuminating and thought provoking.

In the Uk many talk about social consensus. How does society decide what is true and acceptable?

Is it based on feelings? emotions? if so then we are in trouble. People will change like the wind.

in reality many people don’t like truth as being relative. It is a concept taught in arts based subjects and I find many students have not thought this though (as in the example of the oxford student).

The question of absolutes is also a changing feature in the UK. I spoke with people recently who spoke about absolutes only in the physical.

In other words we can both agree that the chair in front of us can hold our weight but not on moral issues.

How do people come to any understanding of truth?

I think there is a real challenge to help people see the folly of such views. There are relational implications involved in no transendent truth and the individualistic culture will pervade if it persists.

Thanks for quoting Ravi, that is a good one to remember.


12.08.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas MisionGloCal1Scott (12)   
Argentine

Muchas gracias Carver Yu por esta excelente presentación, desafio y profundiad que nos ayuda a tomar conciencia-decisión de la posición que tenemos que tomar los cristianos en este tiempo. También adjunto el documento ¿QUIÉN ES JESÚS EN MEDIO DE UN MUNDO PLURALISTA?, Conferencia Ethne to Ethne – Bogotá Noviembre 2009 y COMIBAM Internacional por Bertil Ekström Director Ejecutivo de la WEA MC

Pièces jointes téléchargeables


09.08.2010
PhContributeBy
Répondre Signaler 0 J'aime Je n'aime pas josermv (1)  
Porto Rico

De acuerdo con la importancia de entender y contestar adecuadamente al Pluralismo como parte de nuestra Proclamación.

Mi mayor preocupación, sin embargo, es el hecho de que muchos cristianos actúan como pluralistas. Creo que esta es una importante razón para la falta de los recursos humanos y financieros para cumplir la Comisión.

De vuelta a la doctrina básica! Si no estamos convencidos de que la humanidad está perdida y que Cristo es el UNICO camino, ¿cómo podremos comprometernos con una tarea que requiere sacrificios de nuestra parte?

Debemos ayudar a la Iglesia a discernir la inconsistencia de creer en Cristo cuando a la misma vez que considera válidos otros caminos de reconciliación con Dios. 


08.08.2010
 << Previous  1 2 3 4  5  Next >> 

Vous devez être connecté pour poster un commentaire. Si vous n'avez pas de compte, vous pouvez vous inscrire dès maintenant (c'est facile et gratuit !).

Chine

PhContributeBy Carver Yu  
 
Lieu: Hong Kong
Pays: Chine

Afficher profil


Carver Yu n'a ajouté aucun autre contenu Resources. Pour voir le contenu que Carver Yu a ajouté, cliquez ici.

Carte d'impact et statistiques

 

Vues: 208297
Commentaires: 162
Recommandations: 6

Un clic pour agir

Entrer en contact avec des personnes qui s'intéressent à cette ressource :

Me joindre à des discussions similaires

Institute for Faith, Work and Economics Resources
Institute for Faith, Work and Economics Resources
Auteur : Sas_Conradie

Living with Unfulfilled Dreams in the Marketplace
Living with Unfulfilled Dreams in the Marketplace
Auteur : Labrey_Burris

ebola outbreak
ebola outbreak
Auteur : Labrey_Burris

 

Conditions d'utilisation | Charte de confidentialité | Le Forum mondial de Lausanne est soutenu par World Wide Open | Qu'est-ce que World Wide Open?