Thursday, September 01, 2005


I do not think so, I do not think we need to make the gospel relevant, that is if we truly know what the gospel is. It is not about having a clean moral lifestyle and it is not about being born again though one gets that way when the gospel is received. So long as there is sin in this world, the gospel will be relevant because sin is what the gospel fixes.


once a catholic said...

Doesn't the gospel mission statement say "Go forth and preach the gospel..."? Doesn't that imply being "relevant" so that those who hear will "choose" to accept what is being preached? Arguably, rejection of the message is one consequence but getting the message across from the point of being "relevant" achieves what the mission aims for in the first place. On pentecost, the Holy Spirit made it relevant for the apostles to communicate in other people's tongues in order for those who heard to accept the message and the aim of the mission was achieved. What "relevance" aims to do is to "prepare the ground" as good soil for the seed of the message to grow. And that's an opinion equivalent to the old Indian adage of walking in your friend's moccasins before you can really be a friend. Thank God, Jesus walked in "man's moccasins" to help man be God's friend. So yes, the message is relevant, must be relevant, if we want to follow Jesus' example.

L P Cruz said...


I think there is a limit to what we do with the gospel message and that we need to be careful that the message does not get corrupted along the way. If we care we need to point our listeners to the Law, how we failed to obey that and then to the Gospel how that solves our disobedience.


joel said...

St Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel .... and if necessary, use words"
I thought that was a pretty cool statement, don't you?