In liberal and pluralist societies, Christians seeking to contribute to public ethical debate are faced with a fundamental question: should they base their contribution on an appeal to arguments and insights which constitute the accepted truths of the public forum, or should they appeal to the sources of their own tradition?

There is much at stake, and much at risk, in the choice between these alternatives. An appeal to a shared public truth has the strength of communicability in a pluralist society, but risks reducing Christian communication to statements of generalities which may have only dubious success in expressing a fragile ethical consensus. In appealing to what is held in common, Christians may be sacrificing what is distinctive to their own identity in favour of notions whose general acceptance is based more on their vacuity and banality than their universal transparency. Yet, by speaking directly from their own tradition, Christians may succeed only in alienating other members of society, who hear no more than a religious group recounting special claims to authority and privileged sources of ethical guidance, rather than a community which genuinely seeks to contribute to a common human task.

In the demands of ethical communication, as in so many other matters, the responses of Christians are motivated by their deepest conceptions of the meaning and shape of Christian identity.