All Comments for: Community of Memory | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > October

Christianity Today, October, 2007 |

Community of Memory

We're on the verge of destroying a key pillar of civilization.

Charles Colson with Anne Morse. | posted 10/15/2007 08:53AM

Has relativism so invaded the church that adults have lost the capacity to disciple their own youth? In my darkest moments, I couldn't have imagined it. But a recent episode makes me wonder.

A graduate ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Ken L.

Posted: October 28, 2007 1:35 AM

This issue will always be a difficult to deal with. I feel we should respect other religions and respect the choice people make, even when their choice is not to believe in the Truth. I also believe, going around arguing (in a confrontational manner) how other religions are wrong or false is not how we should evangelize to those who have chosen other religions/faiths. This DOES NOT mean we should not speak to what we believe and know to be the Truth.We are told to share the Truth and the Gospel with the World. We should distinguish Christianity from other Religoins/faiths because there are ciritical differnces. I think it was Ravi Zacharias who said Christianity, unlike other religons, is not about a bunch of doctrines or beliefs, but rather is a change in the very person, a transformation, to someone new. Christianity is not how to live life by, but is a new way of life. We should speak that with others with confidence.The "balance" between preaching and respect is a difficult one

Paul	Posted: October 27, 2007 10:58 AM

Religion isn't primarily a system of beliefs but a community. Around the world people grow up in different communities with different experiences and perspectives. I see different religions as different human responses through experience to the same overarching reality (a higher power). Therefore, there is no one "right" religion or one "wrong" religion. How can one community's experience (Buddhism, for example) be wrong while another's is right? This is also true at the individual level in that arguing that Christianity is the only true religion is like saying that my wife is the only woman in the world. Furthermore, I might think that my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, but that doesn't mean that every other woman is ugly. Why does one thing have to negate the other? I have never understood this and cannot understand why so many Christians cling to these tribalistic ideas.

Paul	Posted: October 27, 2007 10:55 AM

Religion isn't primarily a system of beliefs but a community. Around the world people grow up in different communities with different experiences and perspectives. I see different relgions as different human responses through experience to the same overarching reality (a higher power). Therefore, there is neither one "right" religion nor one "wrong" religion. How can one community's experience (Buddhism, for example) be wrong while another's is right? This is also true at the individual level in that saying that Christianity is the only true religion is like saying that my wife is the only woman in the world. I might think that my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, but that doesn't mean that every other woman is ugly. Why does one thing have to negate the other? I have never understood this and cannot understand why so many Christians cling to these tribalistic ideas.

Allan W.

Posted: October 22, 2007 5:05 PM

Good points, commenters. I have seen this problem firsthand, and wonder about the relativistic world my children are growing up in. Validity of the arguments aside, one thing we can take away from this issue is to develop more emphasis on how we teach others about this question. What makes Christianity better than any other worldview? If we can't help them answer that question - for themselves, not to mention to others - then we are indeed in trouble.

jerry

Posted: October 22, 2007 10:38 AM

Christianity is not one religion among many. It is the only way to be right God and avoid the wrath to come. As such its claims to exclusiveness offend the lost. The world needs to hear the uncompromising Word of God that says Jesus is the only way and without complete faith and reliance of the power of Jesus' blood to our hearts saves us. The proper response of God's children is to speak clearly the Truth. Hell will be filled with the open-minded and tolerant. True Godly love never confuses the lost.

Jon	Posted: October 21, 2007 4:41 PM

This article is a sad testimony, not to the relativism Colson bemoans, but to the TOTAL lack of Biblical discernment in our churches. Colson defines hypocrite when he condemns relativism and then turns around and signs the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) document. He long ago abandoned the true Gospel found in Scripture, and while he may see one area of Relativism, he started another. And yet, perhaps most concerning, HE DOESN'T SEE IT!! "God is not mocked," Chuck.

Rob	Posted: October 21, 2007 9:51 AM

I think the set up to the article is describing a false dichotomy in the question of whether Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism is true. Our human instinct when it comes to this kind of truth is animalistic with a familiar choice, "fight or flight." I advocate for a different kind of submission than just saying, Buddhism or Islam is not true and Christianity is. I advocate to say, "how do those who are Buddhists or Islamic fit into this plan of redemption," and asking the question, "how can we engage this culture, who have had thier beleifs sewn in through generations (for you Chuck), in a way that reveals themselves being made in the image of God and offering a view, albeit after submission, of the Trinity that is humbling to us Westerners. I do believe in an absolute Truth, that which is apart from my perpsective, but I refuse to say, "Everything you believe as a Muslim is not true." How better to divide and conquer! Thanks, but no thanks.

Raymond Takashi Swenson

Posted: October 18, 2007 4:17 PM

There is irony in the fact that, as tolerance of differences is made the primary social virtue for many people, they become very INtolerant of those who are not as tolerant as they are. Thus there are very real social sanctions imposed to punish anyone who asserts that all religions have equal value and equal levels of truth. Those sanctions include social ostracism, denial of academic tenure and promotion, condemnation in the major news media, and eventually legal punishments. Such is the case with the churches that oppose the normalization of homosexuality as of equal status to marriage as a social relationship recognized and protected by society. Church affiliated adoption services that refuse to place babies for adoption by homosexuals are threatened with revocation of their license to arrange adoptions in all other cases. Church related businesses are told they must fund medical services for their employees related to abortion and birth control. Truth is not tolerated!

John	Posted: October 17, 2007 7:21 AM

Colson is an old Nixon Republican warhorse, so I always take what he has to say with a grain of salt. The "tolerance" he bemoans is amongst three faith traditions, ones with hundreds of millions of adherents, not tolerance of say the Paris Hilton-Brittany Spears cultural trash that pervades our culture. As for "truth" each tradition teaches that they are true, although Buddhism would not go as far as Christianity or Islam to say the other two are wrong. "Revealed truth" can apply to Mormons, Scientologist, Muslims, all kinds of people that most CT readers would disagree with. "Truth" is measured by the soundness of reason, the supporting evidence, and the resulting impact the truth has on the person or group's lives. I think it is good that the kids have open minds, it makes it more likely they will develop a mature and solid faith and not just something they memorized but falls apart upon meeting a counter-argument.

Curt	Posted: October 16, 2007 11:36 AM

When we're frequently faced with a "true for you, but not for me" mindset, it makes sense to cover the issue of truth in this course. This may not be essential for salvation, but the error it corrects is a common impediment to faith in Christ. If they're teaching kids the biblical Christ, why would they not include His self-professed exclusivity? Contrary to many who responded, I don't think Colson is appealing at all to tradition. He uses a sociological concept, Bellah's communities of memory, and applies it to the passing on of the revealed truth of Scripture within Christian families. Don't confuse Bellah's point with Colson's. He repeatedly appeals to biblical truth. He actually seems quite clear as to the nature of the problem and its treatment. Too many Christians, including parents and pastors, have bought into an unbiblical worldview that is relativistic and "tolerant." If we don't hold firmly to Scriptural truth and instill it in our children, how will the faith be passed on?

Robert Yet Again

Posted: October 16, 2007 8:15 AM

The problem is that Colson is a reactionary polemicist looking for a new topic on which to harp so as to cause alarm. This article is nothing more than a shameless plug for his Centurion program. 1st-why do you want to distinguish Christianity as true and other religions as false? Classifying Christianity as just one other religion is in and of itself the very thing about which Colson bemoans. It’s like a trick question asked only to elicit the response generated. Its dishonest. 2nd-you do not need to believe in the exclusivity of Jesus to gain salvation. It’s the belief in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, the world’s savior, crucified and raised from the dead that gains one access to God. While this may be exclusive (I believe that it is) believing in its exclusivity is simply NOT an extra requirement tagged on. 3rd-we live in a world that is the complete opposite of the “dark ages” despite Colson’s clever marketing campaign designed to sell books and the Centurion program. Shameless!

R.E.	Posted: October 16, 2007 1:34 AM


This article was interesting but alittle over the top... Robert's responses were amusing and way over the top......

John	Posted: October 15, 2007 11:39 PM

Mr. Colson says "seven of the eight small-group leaders, supposedly mature Christians, balked at distinguishing Christianity as true and other religions as false", but we don't know exactly what the question was or how it was framed. For all we know the leaders responses were correct and healthy and not the responses of right-wing authoritarian followers who demonize anyone who does not conform to their group's ideology. I'd like to know more about the questions asked in Lesson 10 of the Centurion program.

DKeesler

Posted: October 15, 2007 9:45 PM

I love Mr. Colson's writings and have read them since being introduced through "Kingdoms in Conflict" in the late 80's. However, I differ with Mr. Colson on this article that "individualism" is the issue. I believe conversely that the church does NOT want to stand out and be unique.. rather it wants to blend into mainstream society and be compatible with mainstream culture and mainstream values. We are afraid of being socially branded as weird, eccentric, intolerant, but most importantly, intellectually inferior. Evangelical and fundamentalist groups have long since become associated with ignorance, and seen to be embraced by the poor and uneducated and championed by the simple country bumpkin. The modern church is working overtime to break free of that stereotype -- in short, we are willing to sacrifice truth to make Christianity "cool" and acceptable at any cost.

Dianne

Posted: October 15, 2007 9:19 PM

To solve a problem, you have to use a different kind of thinking than that which caused the problem in the first place. The good old days were also the bad old days. Being culturally Christian, and forcibly assimilating non-Christians, as Kim has suggested, did not lead to a dynamic, living Christianity, but to dying institutions. It is up to us to live victorious lives that draw people to us, instead of complaining about someone else's intolerance and whining for our 'rights' and repelling people who need Christ.

Michael McLaughlin

Posted: October 15, 2007 4:28 PM

I do not think the problem is only relativism or a lack of clinging to tradition. The problem is that for too long, Christendom has reduced believing in God to some head knowledge exercise that must be coupled with an adequate measure of apologetics. While this approach has merit for some, it is loosing its effectiveness if people don't understand that faith and proof are different. Yes, moral relativism is bad and glad we are of all of those that point it out at every opportunity. But traditions will always fail to offer a counter if the people do not understand the heart of the message that Jesus revealed and taught. Again, look at the motives and not just the actions. Some traditions should be forgotten and some should be cherished. Christianity has weathered many problems and storms thru the years... its history and memory is sealed in the New Test. Contrarily Christendom, is still young and for it to lose some of its memory might not be a bad thing

Robert Again

Posted: October 15, 2007 3:26 PM

It's hard to know where to begin with Dr Blacketer's comments. 1st I never said post modernism was absent from the problem, but that: simply concluding that it was the cause would not be sufficient. My dear Dr. conclusions are not reasons. 2nd if you want to put memory and tradition on the same level as truth, ok but I, following Luther (as if that mattered) will not subject the biblical text to either. That was my point! But to address Dr Blacketer, who missed it, I digress from my main point. My main point is: Colson has appealed to memory as a solution, when he should be appealing to the biblical text within its historic context and has identified a problem without addressing its root causes. I do however agree with the good Dr. that God, if he wants, can reveal truth wherever he wants, but wonder how he would recognize truth in another religion as such. Perhaps he's relying on Mr. Miller to point it out. And as much as I like Don, he's what I would call theologically light.

Nodrog

Posted: October 15, 2007 2:54 PM


In a UMC adult Sunday school class , a leader in the Church said" No one is going to tell me that a devout Muslim is not going to heaven." I said " I for one will." "If it only faith you need to be saved ,you may as well go pray to that tree out side." Needless to say I am not in the Sunday school class any more.

Kim	Posted: October 15, 2007 2:42 PM

The problem with being a "tolerant" nation is that we are allow all manner of individualism, while not reinforcing the notion of assimilation. We're all, in the US, from somewhere else in lineage. Historically, we maintained our ancestry, our ethnicity, and became "American." These days that's not the case. We're expected to be tolerant only if we're Christian. Other religions don't practice tolerance, quite the opposite. That's no surprise. Jesus Christ is a name that many would like to rid society of.

Dr RA Blacketer

Posted: October 15, 2007 2:28 PM

Memory, Tradition, and Truth are all intimately related, as "Robert" fails to see. The gospel itself is a true and living tradition, handed down from the apostles, as Paul writes to Timothy. And the idea that postmodernism is not part and parcel of increasing subjectism and individualism is ludicrous. One of the problems is that Christians fail to understand that the issue is not "We are right," which is focused on vindicating ourselves, but rather, "the message of Jesus is true," which vindicates God and his gospel. Don Miller talks about this in one of his books. Moreover, we can recognize glimpses and moments of truth in other faiths without denying the truth of the gospel, and without compromising the exclusivity of the gospel. Wm. Barclay, quoted in this issue of CT, was wrong to claim "mercy was never a characteristic of pagan life." He obviously never read Seneca, who wrote an entire book on the virtue of clemency. We need to be more shrewdly serpentine and gently dovelike.

Thomas

Posted: October 15, 2007 1:41 PM

Tolerance has indeed gotten out of hand when it become a goal in its own right rather than the means toward living with others peacefully. However, I think the move towards tolerance is in the exact opposite direction that Colson places it. That is, I think the virtue of tolerance is overemphasized precisely because of the precarious positions of our "communities of memory". Because of this collective unease about the foundations of our shared life as a society, any truth claim has the potential of exploding the pragmatic solution of individualism, and therefore must be marginalized. In short, if the virtues of tolerance grew up out of the desire to avoid conflict and to preserve community, can we offer any reassurance to those who promote tolerance that our own claims to truth will not lead to conflict and perhaps the further dissolution of our broader communities of memory, including our society and our nation? If not, than should we blame them for being concerned?

Rick	Posted: October 15, 2007 1:28 PM


Tolerance, even when it means silence, has become normal. Scripture isn't tolerant. The Truth isn't tolerant! The Truth, spoken in love, is still Truth. As has been said "the trouble with normal is it always gets worse".

Robert

Posted: October 15, 2007 12:52 PM

As is typically the case, Colson is long on pointing out what the problem is, but short (and in this case exceptionally so) on (1) addressing the reason(s) for things being (or coming to be) as they are and (2) how to address them so as to change the way things are, which would of course depend on the reason(s) for (1). To simply chalk this up to relativism or individualism is like saying candy makes you fat because it has lots of calories without asking why people eat candy, or how to effectively to get them to stop. Nor will it do to chalk relativism up to post modernism. Making matters worse Colson goes on to quote Bellah, but to what end. The problem is not losing our "community of memory" as if all we needed to do is remember what we once believed or worse what those who came before us believed. Why in the world would Colson appeal not to truth, but to tradition. It is this sort of wrongheaded thinking that has gotten the church into the very trouble of which Colson's writes.

Kiley

Posted: October 15, 2007 12:43 PM


"... bitch goddess of tolerance?" Wow, I wish I'd written that.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment