Page History

...

In an earlier reflection (Notebooks, 10 December 2007), I took myself to task for having said misleadingly that Christians are responsible not only for the valid, but also for the "efficacious," administration of the specifically Christian means of salvation (Notebooks, 6 January 2004). "In truth," I argued, "whether or not a witness is efficacious is the responsibility, not of the one who bears it, but solely of the one who receives it." I am now convinced that this argument itself is misleading – -- thanks particularly to the adverb "solely."

Granted that, as I argued, the efficacy of witness, as distinct from its validity, depends on how the recipient of the witness takes it – -- namely, either as or not as an existential communication calling for decision about her or his own self-understanding how the recipient takes the witness can hardly be completely independent of how the witness is bome – borne -- namely, either as or not as just such an existential communication. On the contrary, if a witness is borne as though the response it calls for is something other or less than existential decision for or against one's own authentic possibility – -- say, the response of intellectual acceptance of certain statements, believing that/about certain things, or adopting a certain world view – -- then, surely, the recipient can, to some extent, be excused for responding accordingly. In other words, even if how the recipient takes the witness is indeed a necessary condition of its being efficacious, whether it is also the only condition is another question.

...