a bit of serious silliness

Last year I heard a series of 3 sermons/lectures in 3 days discounting post-modernism and of course its simplistic definition, relativism. The 3 lectures took slightly different aspects as their focus, but the underlying purpose was to prove that relativism cannot exist. Everyone, of course, believes in absolute truth. If you insist that there is no absolute truth, then that is your absolute truth. I may be oversimplifying a bit, seeing how it took 3 lectures, but not by much. I can certainly see the point to this thought process, even though there are inherent problems that need to be addressed before this one. Not the least of which is that to call the denial of absolute truth, absolute truth, certainly lowers the bar on the importance of my own belief in absolute truth. And maybe of utmost importance, though simple, is that to claim that the denial of absolute truth is in fact unacknowledged belief in absolute truth, is to admit that one can believe in an absolute truth that is different than mine. By doing so, I’ve become a relativist. Strange loop, indeed.
Now, I should say here that I believe in absolute Truth. But I can hardly deny being a relativist. I don’t think anyone can. In a recent sermon encouraging evangelical unity, I was reminded of how important it is to major on the majors, so to speak. We should stand firm on the essentials, and be willing to compromise on the non-essentials. But to do that, don’t I have to be a relativist? I’m willing to bet that where I draw the line between the essentials and non-essentials is different from where you draw the line. It may be only a slight difference, but it may be great. But what might be slight for me may be great for you. So for the sake of unity, we agree to disagree on the non-essentials. Can we agree on what the non-essentials are?
So what has caused us to decide that we both believe in absolute truth if it is possible that our beliefs diverge? We don’t ask the questions that would reveal our disunity. So we stop seeking answers to tough questions. We are offended by those who are asking questions and we label them relativists.
So I conclude that a relativist who doesn’t ask questions is modern and a relativist who asks questions is a post-modern. No, wait a minute. No one is a relativist, so a modern whose absolute truth is that there is absolute truth is different from a post-modern whose absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.
Of course I’m being slightly silly here, but I do believe that it is a very different endeavor to convince someone that what they believe is wrong than to convince someone that it is wrong not to believe. If our apologetics consist of “God said it, I believe it, and that’s good enough for me”, we shouldn’t be surprised when it has no impact on someone that does not believe in God. We must always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in us. It seems to me that my responsibility is to convince someone to believe rather than convince them that they are wrong for not believing.
Why do I believe? That is another blog.