I’ve been reflecting on this lately: it’s easier to speak to our culture about having a “personal relationship” with Christ than delving right into the moral and dogmatic doctrine of our faith *when* grappling with the initial stages of evangelization. After all, a relationship with Christ is the lens through which such dogma and moral doctrine ought to be internalized.
However, an error can be made when we do not examine what it means to have a relationship with God outside of the context of the Kerygma. This can cheapen the term “relationship” to a mere emotional sentiment that enables an unrepentant disposition.
It’s crucial for the evangelist to integrate in a healthy way the soteriological dimensions that subsist in a relationship with God. In simple terms: sin breaks our relationship with God, but through grace and our repentance that relationship is redeemed.
Repentance has become difficult to proclaim because it’s often merely associated with a change in moral behavior. This is true, but harmfully incomplete. Repentance is not primarily about abiding in some moral imperative, (can’t Kant), but rather it’s about turning back to Three Persons in our daily choices. Seeing each choice we make as a “yes” or “no” to Christ. We are turning towards a personal God, not a moral precept. The moral precept is taken up in that personal God.
Nodding heads may be excited about endorsing a relationship with Christ, but this call has to address the very real broken relationship that exists, which involves a great deal of responsibility, introspection, and courage.
Photo: Public Domain
