Topic: Ravi @ Dartmouth

[Pablo de Fleurs]

Packed evening last night - attended an NJ2AS to hear several candidates for the NJ assembly - then rushed home to catch the last few minutes of Ravi Zacharias @ Dartmouth University on live stream. Once their Twitter feed for the evening was complete, I pasted it together. Good communication points in general (even though he's specifically talking about the Gospel). How do we communicate ANY message in an increasingly secular/pluralistic culture?

Notes, #RaviDartmouth

How do you communicate the Gospel in a secular & pluralistic society? The change in society & change in the church are very serious matters.  If we're not willing to take a step back & reevaluate how we identify w/ listeners, we will be deemed completely out of touch. We must be connected to reality. We must listen well, we must listen carefully, & we must seek to understand others. 
@RaviZacharias

We must understand & embrace the power of dialogue.
@NAQureshi


When we are communicating in the public square, these 4 points abide:

• Identification- You must be able to identify w/ the listener; at the same time you must not erect barriers to them hearing you
• Translation- Our message in their idioms. You must identify with the person. Otherwise, your message will fall on deaf ears
• Persuasion- What in your communication to the listener will be persuasive? In the persuasion- if you can convince someone of the meaning & purpose that Jesus Christ brings- you will always have a listening audience.
• Justification- Why this truth & not any other? Meaning & purpose are at a high premium today. #RaviDartmouth


4 Steps in the Task of Communicating: 
o Awaken a sense of need. (1/4)
o If Jesus is the answer, He will have an answer to that need. (2/4)
o Jesus is not only an answer, but must be seen to be true. (3/4)
o The listener ultimately cannot remain neutral. (4/4)

Starting out with a point of reference, the goal of which is get to a point of relevance, one cannot avoid a point of disturbance. Timing is God’s / opportunity is yours. When you are faithful, you'll be amazed at what God does with the results.

http://apologeticsworkshop.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/ravidartmouth/

[Pablo de Fleurs]

Ravi @ Dartmouth, evening two is rocking (live stream)

@PablodeFleurs:
What's your the starting point on hot #social issues? Intrinsic worth vs. extrinsic worth conveyed by state? #Perspective #RaviDartmouth

Dogmatic claims must be justified, not just asserted; not simply be believed with a sense of conviction, but also expressed in compassion, kindness, courtesy.

...

Ah, a question from the audience: "Isn't the very concept or idea of 'shame' itself intolerant?" . . . . .

[Weisshaupt]

Ah, a question from the audience: "Isn't the very concept or idea of 'shame' itself intolerant?" . . . . .

Of course "shame" is intolerant - intolerant of bad behavior in one's self. The Left is incapable of the feeling.
Others around you may think you should feel ashamed, and they may censure you  in an attempt to make you ashamed of your behavior, but no one can make you feel that way.

We MUST be intolerant of bad behavior - be it murder, theft, of simply rude.  Some bad behavior is so destructive it  requires a formal system of punishment via law and a court system. . Less destructive behavior can  be corrected less formally  ( and with a less costly process)  as each individual decides how to respond to your bad behavior - by   Rude words in return, shunning, gossip  etc. all serve to censure and therefore discourage the bad behavior

[Pablo de Fleurs]

Ah, a question from the audience: "Isn't the very concept or idea of 'shame' itself intolerant?" . . . . .

Of course "shame" is intolerant - intolerant of bad behavior in one's self. The Left is incapable of the feeling.
Others around you may think you should feel ashamed, and they may censure you  in an attempt to make you ashamed of your behavior, but no one can make you feel that way.

We MUST be intolerant of bad behavior - be it murder, theft, of simply rude.  Some bad behavior is so destructive it  requires a formal system of punishment via law and a court system. . Less destructive behavior can  be corrected less formally  ( and with a less costly process)  as each individual decides how to respond to your bad behavior - by   Rude words in return, shunning, gossip  etc. all serve to censure and therefore discourage the bad behavior

You're spot on. However, the questioner meant it from the perspective of a culture that tolerates everything. She was stating that for us to expect someone to express shame over a particular behavior...was intolerant of us (those with a moral compass).

Ravi's answer parallels yours:

Ravi answered, asking “Are we on the highway to pleasure without principle?” When lines are crossed that are wrong – you know it in your heart. It’s God’s way of telling you that it is wrong. We need a personalization of right & wrong. And we must, as a culture, encourage that personalization if we want long-term cultural workability & a civilized society.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

Here's the full set of notes:

America is at a crossroads. The North America I came to in the 1960s is so different from the North America we live in today. A cultural revolution is underway when you make a decisive break from the shared meanings of the past.  What is ultimate goal in a civilized society? To all agree with each other, or to live in a respectful way regardless of our differences?

Secularization is the process by which religious ideas, institutions, & interpretations lose their social significance. Where will we be in America if we allow secularization to evict all religious thought & belief from the public square? If secularization takes hold, the definitions to which we cling will become extremely elusive & we won't know where to draw the lines anymore & will lead to no point of reference for shame.

Pluralization is when there are a competing number of worldviews available to our members, & no one worldview is dominant. The problem is when pluralization leads to the idea that there are no absolutes. No absolutes lead to a palpable cancer of our time which can be described in one word: meaningless. Meaninglessness is a plague facing many college students today. We still, however, will have to deal with the truth. And truth has a jagged edge, which ultimately will stab you if you try to walk against it.

Privatization is when you are forced to keep what you believe in the private & never bring it in the public. Yet, when we acknowledge our faith, that which is sacred to you in private is also sacred to you in public. Therefore, be diligent & express your belief within the public arena. We do have the right to disagree, but we don't have the right to be disagreeable. You can present dogmatic truth with gentleness & respect, without being obnoxious. Dogmatic claims must not simply be believed with a sense of conviction, but also expressed in compassion, kindness, courtesy; they must be justified, not simply asserted. For if truth is not undergirded by love, it makes the possessor of that truth obnoxious & the truth repulsive; truth unbeautified becomes unattractive.

Dialogue is, or should be, the interaction of logic – not emotion. If an academic institution is going to be honest, please provide a platform to proclaim dissenting views & let the truth win out in the end. In discussing difficult social issues (marriage, abortion, sexual norms). How can we define these issues if we do not know the purpose of our lives. What is your starting point? Intrinsic worth vs. extrinsic worth conveyed by state. Begin @ the foundation & move the discussion forward from there. What's your starting point on hot #social issues, intrinsic worth or extrinsic worth conveyed by state?

In the Q & A session someone asked whether the concept of ‘shame’ was just another avenue for intolerance?

Ravi answered, asking “Are we on the highway to pleasure without principle?” When lines are crossed that are wrong – you know it in your heart. It’s God’s way of telling you that it is wrong. We need a personalization of right & wrong. And we must, as a culture, encourage that personalization if we want long-term cultural workability & a civilized society.

[Pablo de Fleurs]

(Smartphone wallpaper)