This is a short talk I gave at the European Leadership Forum in Poland. It is an attempt to give an overview of secularism, what it is and how we communicate the Gospel in a secular society. I hope this is helpful …
The Blog of David Robertson
The Blog of David Robertson
This is a short talk I gave at the European Leadership Forum in Poland. It is an attempt to give an overview of secularism, what it is and how we communicate the Gospel in a secular society. I hope this is helpful …
David, I hear what you say about Acts 17 and turned the world upside down. Men who have caused trouble all over the world. Did not Paul describe himself and others as having become the scum of the earth?
I also hear what you say about secular utopianism – the idea of human beings getting better. I am with you with that being historically that also being the case of the enlightenment. With positive optimism at human endeavour, Neitzche declaring “God is dead” and his jottings of “Will to Power” being published by his sister and used for Nazi propaganda.
And yes, science has progressed but literature or philosophy, human relations can’t be said to be better now. We have put a man on the moon at the same time we have found more effective ways of blowing each other up!
I hear the challenges you talk of with evangelism and it not working until there is an approach that in the context we are in it’s not normal to believe in God. So if evangelism is to be had – if the gospel of the good news of Jesus Christ is not to be hindered it becomes necessary to be a liberal to the liberals, a secularist to the secularists does it not – just as Paul became a Greek to the Greeks and a Roman to the Romans?
If we do carry the presence of Christ will that not by its very nature result in a times being hated but also having influence? Are we not ourselves in our nature, included to make is about us and not God? Do we therefore not need to acknowledge the darkness in us and be kind to ourselves, while submitting it to the light so that then we can be light?
And therefore do we not find ourselves interdependent. So whether politically Church and state are separate, there is a theocracy or a culture where the state controls the church it be a matter of working with the tools we have?
So to be clear with a specific example. One depends on the state for governance, for without that there would be anarchy. And the state, humanity, secularism call it what you like depends on the evangel in order that there be something better than history has shown to happen with the enlightenment.
Someone once said that in order to thrive others have to thrive too.
I say they were right.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.