Radical Together: Unleashing the People of God for the Purpose of God

Rating:	★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Religion & Spirituality
Author:	David Platt

I decided to read the book, Radical Together by David Platt, at the suggestion of our pastor. Upon finishing it, I think I can best summarize my thoughts on the book by saying that Platt had a lot of good things to say, but he not only didn't say them very well (sometimes contradicting himself, many times overstating himself, and almost always showing only one piece of a much larger picture), but I think he overemphasized very extraverted traditional forms of evangelism and what it means to be "radical". I've read other reviews on this book and most readers seem to really, really like it. So obviously Platt is hitting cords with people and is able to motivate them in a way that just doesn't seem to connect with me. Different strokes for different folks and all that. (Could it be that Sensing individuals like the very clear, very physical forms of being "radical"? Both my mom and Pastor Don are S's and both like Platt's books. If you're an iNtuitive and you read this book, I'd love to hear your thoughts.) But this review is going to be about my response and thoughts on this book. So if you liked this book, that's great. But it really rubbed me the wrong way.

I could summarize Platt's six main points, but most other reviews already do that, so I won't spend the time. Rather, I'd like to focus on his underlying foundational premises and presuppositions. For the most part I agree with his stated points. We do need to be congregations who focus resources on more than just ourselves. We should have Bible-based preaching. We should encourage and equip congregants to build relationship with people in the community, helping people physically and spiritually. We should have a great concern for the poor and the orphans and the widow. I'm right on with all that. But Platt rests these "radical" (some might call them Biblical) behaviors on a foundation that I find at times to be shaky and at other times to be very one-sided. Platt clearly has a heart for evangelism and his book is primarily a focus on evangelism. And I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with Platt's understanding of the church and her purpose and I do have a problem with Platt's statements that put evangelism at the pinnacle of all that is radical. It is one thing to focus on evangelism as an important part of what it means to be within a Christian community, it's another thing to make evangelism out to be all and (literally) end all.

Premises and Presuppositions
Platt makes several statements throughout the book that put in no uncertain terms his opinion of the purpose of the church:

"The only possible vision for the church of Jesus Christ is to make known the glory of God in all nations."

"God has called us to lock arms with one another in single-minded, death-defying obedience to one objective: the declaration of his gospel for the demonstration of his glory to all nations."

"If the ultimate goal of the church is to take the gospel to all people groups, then everything we do in the church must be aimed toward that end."

Platt apparently believes that the ultimate and overarching goal of the church of Jesus Christ is evangelism. He doesn't say it's a part of the church's calling, but that it IS the church's calling. Sure, we're supposed to go forth to all nations. God definitely wants to get the word out and he wants us to do some of the footwork on that. But evangelism is only one of several things that glorify God. (Of course, evangelism can also be done in a way that very much does not glorify God and makes him out to be something he's not. But that's a different topic of discussion.) There are other things, according to the scriptures, that also glorify God: our worship (John 4:24), our love for one another (Romans 15:7), our sanctification as we become more like Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18), and our service to others with the gifts God has given us (2 Corinthians 8:19). To imply that one of those things is more important than any other distorts the picture of what the church has been called to be and to do. If Platt had written from a premise that evangelism is one of the actions of the church, I'd feel much more comfortable with that. Writing that it's the "only possible vision for the church" minimizes the importance of other gifts within the church such as discipleship, hospitality, teaching, preaching, encouraging, showing mercy, etc.

I believe Platt also sensationalizes what it means to be "radical." He never defines the term, but the impression you get from reading the book is that in order to be radical, you must do something that can be measured, and when it is measured, it will big. Quitting your job and moving to a third world country to tell people about Jesus is clearly visible to the undiscerning eye. It is big. Going through the church budget and giving more away to overseas missions, or giving substantial amounts to programs that help orphans and widows, is measurable. And big. Platt may not have meant to imply this, but from reading the book it's fairly clear that if you can't see the action from a mile away, it's not radical. The Bible makes clear, though, that sometimes it's the little things that are radical. When there's another person in the congregation who gets on your very last nerve and who almost makes you want to just leave the church altogether, and yet through Christ's love and forgiveness you learn to love and forgive that individual in turn, that is radical. It's not easy to measure. It might not even be visible to those who didn't realize the animosity that was previously in the relationship. But that doesn't mean it's not entirely radical, especially in the midst of our self-protectionist, cut bait and run kind of culture. Or sticking with a congregation through thick and thin because we recognize that God has put us in the family, not to run away from it or to despise it, but to learn, within that context, how to hope, how to forgive, how to be patient, how to be kind, how to forbear and above all how to love well. That is radical. Sure, staying put might not look radical. And to be honest, sometimes it isn't radical. But staying put and learning to faithfully follow Jesus in a day to day setting as an imperfect person surrounded by imperfect people -- that is truly radical. If we're going to talk about being radical, we should be using the Bible's standard (forgiving 70x7 times or turning the other cheek) rather than using an outdated, Americanized view of what the term means.

Maybe it's not a contradiction, but it sure isn't very clear
Platt also seems to contradict himself a few times. The first time I think might actually have been intentional. In fact, the title of the chapter, "The gospel that saves us from work saves us to work" shows the problem. Though I understand what Platt was trying to get at (I think) -- that we are not saved by our works, so we should quit trying. Rather we are saved by Christ and the overflow of that is radical obedience to Jesus (shown in our actions/works) - I don't feel like he made that very clear in the chapter. I finished the section thinking, "OK, so we're supposed to stop working our butts off to the point of exhaustion so we can work our butts off to the point of exhaustion... for Jesus. How are those two things different again?" It simply wasn't clear and the chapter seemed like one big unresolved contradiction. But I also felt like Platt contradicted himself when talking about programs. In chapter one, Platt made very clear that sometimes we're so focused on programs that we're not actually following God's word. I agree to some extent with that. Sometimes a church that is focused on its programs is a church that's lost focus of itself as a body, the body of Christ. So what I got from chapter one was that programs should be demoted or done away with altogether in an effort to better align with the word of God. But then he proceeds in chapter four, in the section entitled "People, Not Programs," to suggest an alternative to big programs that take place in the church building. The alternative? Little programs taking place in people's homes. He doesn't change the what so much as the size and the where. So programs are OK as long as they're broken into little bits? As an introvert, I certainly have nothing against smaller group sizes. But if we're going to talk radical, shouldn't the difference be more than just quantity and location? Shouldn't there be a fundamental difference in how we relate to one another, not as co-participants in a program but as co-participants in the Kingdom?

What also wasn't clear was what Platt meant by certain words. I've already pointed out that he didn't define "radical" except through big, measurable examples. But he also never explained what he meant by "the gospel." He talked about the gospel quite a bit. But if I had never heard the term before, and I only knew about it through Platt, this is what I would discern from this book: 1) The gospel has been chained. (Implied on pages 45-46.) 2) The gospel needs to be unchained so that it will unleash God's people/the church. (Pages 25, 30, 34, and 46. Although on page 41 it's leaders who do the unleashing.) 3) The gospel gets people to do stuff that they wouldn't otherwise do (I didn't get page numbers for this. It was frequently stated, though.) and 4) sometimes the gospel is "of grace" and that gets people to do even more than they would have done. (Not as frequently stated. Seemed like a special case scenario.) I also felt like evangelism was never defined. Again, if I were an outsider looking in, I would assume from this book that evangelism consisted in convincing people (preferably in far away countries) to turn around and start convincing other people to turn around and convince yet other people about... something. ... probably about this "gospel" and Jesus and about how important evangelism is. Remember back in the days before the postmodern area when people could talk about Christianey stuff and assume that everyone else knew exactly what they were talking about? This book would have fit in really well back then. Even if Platt is directing his book toward a wholly Christian audience, I still think that some background, such as what he means when he says things, would help round out his message and make his meanings far more clear. As it is, he could very well mean that we just need to make people pray a prayer. And that's it. It's over. Check that person off and move on to the next one. I find that neither "radical", nor indicative of being "together."

Radical Together
Which brings me to one last pet peeve. When I see the words "radical" and "together" placed side-by-side, my impression is that the topic being covered will have to do with being together, being a community, in a way that is only made possible through God (which would therefore mean that it's radical). So upon reading this book and finding that most of the sections were really about how to organize programs and budgets in a large church setting, I was pretty thrown. Where's the together? If we're doing something simultaneously does that make it a "together" thing?

Walk the Word
I think David Platt is overall trying to make a good point. If you're going to say that you're a follower of Jesus Christ, then you should be reading the word. If you're trying to build your spiritual life only through reading books about the Bible rather than reading the Bible itself, you're going to end up being either a weak or a nominal Christian. If you're going to call yourself a Christian, but you're going to immerse yourself in the wealthy, self-centered American mindset rather than in the self-sacrificing, giving Christian mindset, then is your faith coming through in your actions? Are you a follower of Jesus or a follower of comfort? Are you walking the walking and not just talking the talk? These are certainly things that self-satisfied American Christians should be reflecting on.

But the way that Platt challenges people to think these things through, and the specific examples he gives as answers to the problems he's addressing, can go a long way toward creating guilt and misdirection among the people of God. You don't have to be livin' it loud to be radical. If your gifts are compassion and hospitality, those are things that are sorely needed. If your gifts are discipleship or teaching, the church needs you. If your gifts are preaching or showing mercy, God has a purpose for you. Evangelism is not the only call that God has placed upon his people. If you do not have the gift of evangelism, or if you are an evangelist who perseveres quietly through trial rather than running for greener pastures, that does not make you any less radical in God's eyes. You know what makes Christians truly and completely radical? Jesus. It's only through him that we're anything at all. His gifts are many and plentiful and cover a variety of purposes within the church. And by using those gifts within the context of a congregation, we can bring glory to God through worship, love for one another, sanctification, the use of our God given gifts, and evangelism. Now that's radical together.

Would you chain yourself to a tree to save it? Here, have a cheap bracelet.

In the world of religiosity, there are levels, or perhaps they're Dantéan spheres, of holiness. Those within each sphere look very similar to each other no matter which god they've chosen to follow: the Omnipotent God, the Mother Earth, or the Perfect Man. Among the grandest sphere you'll find mystics, monks and priests. Beneath them the religious -- they attend the right meetings, read the right books, and make decisions based on their beliefs. In the level below that fall those who are really more nominal about their beliefs, talking the talk now and then, but walking the walk only when it suits their needs. The bulk of people fall here. They may follow one system of beliefs while paying lip service to an entirely different religion. The worst of these we call hypocrites. The rest are just how people are, we might say with a shrug. There is no sphere for those who are against a set of beliefs, because the very act of being against something gives this group of people a distinct set of beliefs of their own, and therefore would relegate them to one of the spheres already mentioned. The goal of the leadership of any movement is to draw people from that outer sphere to one of the inner ones. But I wonder, sometimes, whether their tactics don't really just draw people from one part of the outer circle to a different part of the outer circle, all the while lining the pockets, or stroking the egos, of those in the center -- opiating the masses for the self-gratification of the greedy shepherds.

A few weeks back I received an invitation from the Sierra Club in the mail. For anyone unfamiliar with the Sierra Club, they are (according to their website) "the largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States." One of the leaflets in the invitation asked me, "Would you chain yourself to a tree to save it?" In other words, what they were saying was, "Would you be willing to move to the in-most circle -- the realm of mystics, monks and priests -- to show your total dedication to the cause?" It was an evangelical call, one that was crafted to stir my blood and give me hope that I, too, could be radical and cool in my religion of environmentalism. It was designed to strike a cord within me that I could be great. I could be radical. Or, if I would just join the Sierra Club, I could at least be associated with such greatness. I could wear a backpack and bracelet that would mark me as a fanatic who's willing to go all out for the cause -- nevermind the fact that the backpack and bracelet are really tools of evangelism that ultimately undermine the cause. (The bracelet is shown on the right in the photo and the offer for the backpack is in the lower left. The bracelet is the tease, the backpack is the hook.) 

I would think that an environmental organization would, as one of its standard modes of operation, reduce, reuse and recycle, and encourage others to do the same. And yet here they've not only wasted some trees to generate the paper the evangelical call was printed on, but they've included a ridiculously cheap bracelet in the letter that, if tossed into the recycling bin without first being removed from the envelope, could muck up an entire load of paper recycling. I can't imagine anyone over the age of 5 or 6 being thrilled with such a bracelet, so for those that caught the fact it was in the envelope before they tossed the paper into recycling are now left with the choice of throwing it away (Rather than reducing their trash, the Sierra Club has just helped them to increase it.) or donating it to charity (where it'll most likely get thrown out as too cheap to sell). 

And that's just the bracelet. If you join now at the low introductory rate of $15, you'll receive an official Sierra Club 1892 Rucksack in the same style as the one used so long ago by John Muir, the founder of the club. It might be in the same style, but I'd bet money that not only is it made of very different material (something petroleum based?) but it was also probably made in China. There's no way they could make anything even remotely the same quality as John Muir's original rucksack for under $15, so not only are you contributing to environmental problems by procuring this petroleum based product that had to travel half way around the world to get to you and that was most likely made under lax environmental regulations, thereby contributing to the pollution of another nation, but it's not going to last long and will soon be yet another item you can add to the land fill. 

Why would the Sierra Club so brashly invalidate its own message by marketing in this way? Well, it takes a lot of work to become the "largest and most influential" environmental organization in the United States. Sometimes you have to do things that don't quite fit your message in order to further spread your message. In fact, sometimes you have to do things that argue directly against your message... in order to further spread your message. 

It's a philosophy that I see used not just by organizations like the Sierra Club, but within church circles as well. If the message is only spread through numerical growth, the argument goes, then numerical growth is of key importance. So services, programs, style and focus all need to be such that they will create the largest numerical growth possible within the congregation. And what draws people to an organization? A sense that perhaps they can be, if not the fanatic in the center circle, at least closely associated with the inner circle through being a part of a church that: (choose all that apply) is cool, is happening, is growing, is "authentic" (whatever that means), is exciting, is deep, that makes me feel good, that makes me feel like I get it and the rest of the world doesn't, that makes me feel special.

There's a common belief in many Christian circles that bigger is better. Quick growth is better. Younger is better. Newer is better. And if your congregation isn't young, energetic and growing by leaps and bounds numerically, then the opposite must be true. The converse of the belief is that if an organization is not growing, then it is ineffective at accomplishing its goal. Such congregations are just old and dried up and outdated. But what is most egregious, I find, is that the mentality, then, is to grow at all costs. Can you truly convey a message by contradicting it? And why do we buy that when it's a lie. It's a lie that we're quick to believe no matter which congregation we're in, the large or small, the energetic or the faithfully plodding along.

I'm not saying that growth is bad and stagnation is good. Far from it. What I'm saying is that the church has a message. It has been called not only to share the message, but to live it. When we decide that sharing the message is so important that we can stop living it in order to share it better, then "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (ripped from 1 John 1:8) Part of the message is perseverance. Part of the message is faithfulness. When we criticize those who have faithfully persevered even through difficult times we are criticizing them for taking the message of the gospel to heart and living it out. We are undermining our own ability to share the message by condemning our own brethren for holding true to the message. We may look or sound very incredibly cool. We may get people in that outer circle to stop and think, "I want to be in that inner circle. I want to be radical for Jesus." But what kind of radicality do we call them to? If they buy the t-shirts and raise their hands at the meetings and go our for a beer with their small group, have they really moved from the outer circle to an inner circle? If their choice to follow God depends primarily upon their own need to feel like they're a part of something or they like the energized feeling they get after a service or they need to be "fed," are they really following God, or are they submitting to a message of consumerism, or me-ism, or coolness? If you follow God for the buzz, are you following God or the buzz?

Are we calling people to Jesus? Or are we just encouraging them to move around in the nominal circle they were already a part of in order to make ourselves look more important?

Praise vs. Despair

This is from Isaiah 61. The part I want to ramble on about is in bold, but I'm putting a few verses here in case you're looking for context. 

 ¹ The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, 
       because the LORD has anointed me 
       to preach good news to the poor. 
       He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, 
       to proclaim freedom for the captives 
       and release from darkness for the prisoners, 

 ² to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor 
       and the day of vengeance of our God, 
       to comfort all who mourn,

 ³ and provide for those who grieve in Zion— 
       to bestow on them a crown of beauty 
       instead of ashes, 
       the oil of gladness 
       instead of mourning, 
       and a garment of praise 
       instead of a spirit of despair. 
       They will be called oaks of righteousness, 
       a planting of the LORD 
       for the display of his splendor.

I am often amazed at the number of Christians who dwell in the land of despair and doom and gloom (especially when it comes to politics, but definitely in other areas as well). You know what, the president or prime minister is not going to be the president or prime minister forever. The war in Afghanistan will not last forever. Gay marriage and abortion, believe it or not, will not be the critical points of concern forever. Presidents come and go. Wars come and go. Issues come and go. 

But we are an eternal people, who should have an eternal perspective, and should stop whining and moaning and griping about things in this world that we already know is "groaning as in the pains of childbirth" because of us and our sin! Duh! The world is a screwed up place. We should know that already. Griping about it is pointless. In fact, it's worse than pointless. It's a "spirit of despair" that shows we really don't get it. We are the people who should see that there is life that encompasses far more than our little sanctimonious selves. We are the ones who should be able to step outside of ourselves and see people as they are. We should be able to love and encourage them where they're at, not because we're good at that sort of thing, but because the one who is good at that sort of thing works through us. We should be the ones who find that which is praiseworthy and praise it!

Can you imagine how the world would be different if Christians were people who were known for being so full of praise for that which is praiseworthy that it was as if that were the very clothes we wore?! 

Introverted Evangelists? You've got to be kidding.

The eighth chapter of Adam McHugh's book, Introverts in the Church, is entitled "Introverted Evangelism" -- a term that many people might consider to be an oxymoron. I've always considered myself to be more of a discipler than an evangelist and this chapter pretty much bears that out, except that Adam makes the point that that discipling sort of behavior might also work well as evangelistic sort of behavior.  Let me explain from my point of view first, then I'll toss in some quotes from the book.     

When I think of discipling, I think of deep conversations about scripture, spirituality, life and our place in it. It's often a one-on-one thing and though one person in that pairing might be more "mature" or knowledgeable than the other, both end up learning and benefiting from the relationship and interactions. What Adam is saying is that when you do that exact sort of thing, only you're doing it with a non-Christian, that's evangelism.  

OK, so here's some words from the horse's mouth:

I think that our prevailing evangelistic methods are ill-suited for introverts.

For too long we have envisioned evangelism as one person, carrying a quiver of answers, assaulting another person who is armed with the questions. 

Rather, I consider us all to be explorers of the mysteries of God.  Fellow explorers are bound together by their trust and friendship, and by their shared aspirations and struggles.

We might even call our style of evangelism a "listening evangelism."

Postmodern people are not as persuaded by rational argumentation as much as they are by a lifestyle that substantiates a person's worldview.

He also made a comment that I found particularly interesting just from the introvert vs. extrovert perspective.  He said, "Introverts are more exhausted by initiating than by responding."  That is SO TRUE. There have been times when I've had "call so-and-so" on my to-do list for days.  But then for some reason they'll call me instead and I'm so relieved that I can accomplished whatever I needed to without having had to initiate the call. 

I always assumed that it was just an "I hate telephones" thing, but as I think about it, I can see that it fits for other circumstances as well. For example, it's hard for me to walk up to visitors during Sunday morning services. I don't know what to say or ask or do.  But if someone else is already talking to them, and I can just walk up and stand there until there's a point of conversation that I'm interested in and can speak to, then I feel much more comfortable and able.

Objective, Absolute, and Universal Truth

“The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all.” -- atheism.com

“An absolute truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact.” -- wisegeek 

It's popular in Christian circles to talk about Absolute Truth.  It's spoken of as one of those defining features that sets us apart from the rabble. While all the world is going to hell in a hand basket because they're a hedonistic bunch of Relativists, the Christians sit smugly upon their stack of Absolute Truths which, conveniently enough, can only be deduced directly from the their own religious text, the Bible. So if you were ever to come to the point that you agreed with Christians on their absolute truths, you'd have to first except the absolute truth that the Bible is the only source for absolute truths.  (This has been my experience, at least, when it comes to discussions among Christians on Absolute Truth.  I'm not trying to say this is absolutely always how the topic is approached.  I'm just giving a relativistic (and snarky) description based on my own personal experiences.)

And yet, if there is objective truth, shouldn't those truths, by definition, be evident, not only to Christians, but to all people? For example: “All people will die.”  This is a basic and objective truth that I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree with you on. (Of course, Rob's answer was a prompt, "But you can't prove that." I suppose that just because everyone that's gone before us has died doesn't mean that everyone now or to come will also die. So yeah, I can't prove that. Ironic, isn't it? Something that I'm pretty sure everyone would agree to as an absolute truth can't be absolutely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. No wonder discussions of truth often end up sounding more like squabbles than revelations.) Though the Bible addresses the mankind and death issue ("There is a time for everything... a time to be born and a time to die..." -- Ecclesiastes 3:1a, 2a), I think you can find those who have never once read the Scriptures who would also agree with this truth. In my mind, the fact that you could find people of all ages, cultures and religions who agree with this statement is a strong indicator that the statement is a universal truth (even if you can't prove it). 

In fact, as much as Christians love to try to prove that there is absolute truth (even to the point of proving that what someone hasn't said is wrong), I think the real heart of the matter is not that there are those who believe absolute truth doesn't exist, but that there are those (most of us, in fact) who simply forget these absolute truths.  

And so, when someone comes along and reminds us of some of those absolute truths, their words have the ability to strike us at the core.  They resonate with what we have already experienced to be true, and they spur us on to remember and live by those absolute truths. 

A friend of mine recently posted Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address, which resonated with me not only because I think it was a well written and organized speech (and because I think Jesus would use a Mac (a computer that Steve Jobs invented)), but because it jived so well with the book that several gals and I have been reading and discussing in our Bible study group on being peacemakers. Here was a man who attributed nothing to God, who very well may never have read the Bible, and who didn't in any way claim to be a Christian, and yet what he said struck me as being true.  It agreed with beliefs (I think of them as "truths.") that I have found in the Bible.  It agreed with experiences I have had in life. In my opinion, Steve Jobs struck upon several Absolute Truths in his speech. 

He had three main points: 

1. The dots will connect.  Trust that and it will give you confidence.
2. Crap happens. Use those times to start over - to redirect yourself again towards what you love. 
3. We will all die. So choose well how you will live and don't get caught up in silly fears and pointless worries. 

OK, so point number one is the most shaky in terms of being "absolute."  Though many people believe in "destiny" or "karma" or "predestination," there are also many that believe life is random.  As a Christian, however, I find it interesting that Jobs would hit upon this point. Proverbs 3:5 says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding."  In Steve Jobs-ese that would read, "Trust that something -- your gut, destiny, life, Karma, whatever -- is connecting the dots in your life.  Looking forward, you won't see how these dots are going to connect, but looking back, it will become clear." (That's not a direct quote from Jobs.  It's a rearranging of things he said into an approximation of the Proverbs 3:5 format.)  Jobs added that, "Believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart even when it leads you off the well worn path. And that will make all the difference."  

Jobs' second point, that loss can bring you around to seeking after what you love, is also something that can be found in the Bible.  Paul wrote that "when you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first." (1 Corinthians 15:36) The bounty doesn't come until after there's been the struggle that the seed must endure - burial, death, and new life from the husk that's left behind. Jobs also hit upon several other ideas under this second point: "Keep Looking, don't settle," "Sometime's life's gonna hit you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith," and "You've got to find what you love." In other words, persevere, keep faith, and don't forsake your first love.  (Jobs sounds like a 21st century echo of Saint John as he wrote to the church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)).

Steve Jobs concluded with the point that I've already addressed above: We're all going to die. He says, "Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything -- all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure -- these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart." This is wisdom.  Steve Jobs has stated quite eloquently here what even Saint Paul struggled to get across to the early Christians living in Rome -- "We were therefore buried with [Jesus] through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:4) 

When Saint Paul entered a new city and started speaking to the people there, he often began not by pointing out all the ways in which he disagreed with them, but by pointing out a truth that they could all agree upon. For example, in talking to the men of Athens, he referenced one of their own poets, giving support to his words not by sourcing his own religious text, but by referencing something of theirs. (Acts 17) I can only imagine what our own society would be like if Christians stopped trying to prove that they had the corner on the market for truth and rather started reminding others of truths that we all agree upon (as I feel Steve Jobs has done, heathen though he might be). From there could spring other discussions, such as trying to determine the source of those truths.  But rather than pushing a cultural debate founded upon disagreement, we'd be beginning from a point of unity.  How different would our conversations be then?

Absolute Truth shouldn't be a dividing point used by Christians to attempt to chasten the world.  Rather, Absolute Truth should be that which breaks down the boundaries between us and others and enables us to speak with thoughtfulness, respect, and well... truth.

South Carolina plans license plate for Christians

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2409.asp
If they can't tell we're Christians by our love, perhaps this license plate will do the trick.