새로운 기독교인' Kool 원조

하는 무엇이 뒤에 오는 사람들은 공통점 있다:

Tony 죤스
솔직한 Schaeffer
C. Wess Daniels
그리고 지금 현재로, 예수 선언의 28명의 독자 (및) 세기?

어딘가에 선에 따라서, 그들은 Obama Kool 원조에서 길어고 그리고 단단했던 소리내어 먹었다.

이 포스트는 저것을 Obama를 위해 투표하는 것은 눈 먼 추종자의인다는 것을 건의하고 있지 않다 Jonestown 순종. 모두에는 그들의 이유 (다른 사람 보다는 어떤 더 나은)가 있다 정치 또는 투표에 올 때 상술하는 사람들의 아무도가 어리석은 좀비가 아니다는 것을 나는 믿고. 그러나 다만 표면의 밑에 비등은 숭배 처럼 Obama의 뛰기에서 명시한 숭배이다. 그가 약간 달 트윈 시티로 후에 질주할 때, Beatles가 개통 행위이었다 처럼, 우는 여자 실신 그리고 성장한 남자의 보고가 있었다. Obama의 교회는 회의에 있었다.

어떤은인지 거기 어느 것의) 저것이 그것에 거기 모두이면 어리석은 로큰롤 가수 존경 그리고 예쁜 얼굴인 경우에 저가 Obama를 위해 투표를 일축하는 것이 매우 쉬울 (. 그러나 미국에 있는 가장 큰 인기 경연대회에 의하여 단지 보전된 매 4 년마다가 인 무슨에 있는 보는 것이 매우 단단하다 Barack Obama가 그런 음성을 얻은지 왜의 중핵을. "희망," 우리 모두에 "변화," 그리고 "단일성" 호소의 그의 전문적 유행어. 그는 세계적인 폭력, 법인 욕심 및 확장한 빈곤의 떠들썩한 절기로 이웃사람과 미국을, 동등하게, 앞으로 이동하는 주요한 후보자 인 것처럼 보인다. His platform reaches across simple party lines and brings a holistic Christian voice for those progressive members of the Church that for years have wanted to see politics be about more than just abortion and sexuality. So why shouldn’t we all drink from the same grape flavored trough?

Because I’m fearful it could turn out to be poisoned with Valium, chloral hydrate, and cyanide.

This has less to do with Mr. Obama’s stances on any political issue of our day, and more with the historical precedent Christianity has set for itself. When I see Christianity (fundamentalist, progressive, liberal, or any other type) get behind a movement or person, I can usually rest assured that we are at least two years late and five feet short. Rather than express Christian revelation in a way that is specific and adequate to the social realities in which we live, as Jacques Ellul writes, the Church too often “looks for ways to adapt Christianity to the dominant intellectual and sociological trend.” As a result, we guarantee ourselves a “small place in the new social order.”

The tendency to do this in understandable. It is the failures of the Church that has so often pushed well-meaning Christians to adopt new strategies for social change just as much as a bright new star appearing on the scene. But timing is everything and Ellul saw this in the “newly discovered” relationship between Marxist thought and Christianity. Christianity failed to answer the big questions and problems of the day, while Marxism offered a palatable answer that seemed Biblical enough. The two became one. The process of the inevitable co-opting in Ellul’s day looks eerily similar to our own situation:

(1) Injustice

The unjust society actually resulted after 20 centuries of Christianity.

· Communism loudly trumpets equality across classes

(2) Poverty

Rather than helping, the Church became just another “power” and sanctified the poor.

· Communism (in theory) always sides with the poor

(3) Authenticity

The Church had a serious disconnect between theory and practice. Hypocrites owned the hour.

· Communism consistently puts theory into practice; they practice what they preach

(4) Material Reality

Christianity offered a disembodied, private spirituality.

· Communism rubs our nose in this betrayal. It reminds us of the decisive importance of concrete, human life before death, and of the body and daily activity.

(5) Communal Aggressiveness

Christians sit besides each other on Sunday and yet ignore each other ’s lives.

· Communism promises to birth a communal spirit of militancy, sacrifice, and commitment.

This should in no way be read as an endorsement of Communist thought. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of an endorsement of any political/social “ism.” But it’s not hard to see how drinking the Obama “hope and change” kool-aid could lead to the same place Ellul’s communist brothers and sisters found themselves in. Ellul describes the process this way:

Recognizing this challenge moves us to take the next step: to take Christianity seriously again, to desire at last to be authentically Christian. Thus we were, to a great extent, encouraged to come to ourselves… But we move beyond the stage of listening to a challenge to noting an agreement, and from this observation we move on to seeing conformity at the level of action. Christians find they are no longer called just to become more Christ-like, but they believe that in order to become better Christians, they must cooperate with the Communists. (pp. 9-10, Jesus and Marx)

And as we again carve out our niche in the political realm, except this time while “caring about more than just abortion,” we will do whatever we have to do to stay there. And instead of once again taking Christianity seriously, we’ll turn to the latest message of “social justice” and “political reconciliation” being peddled by the loudest voice and ask them to do our share of the work. The flavor may have changed, but I’m afraid it’s still laced.

for further reading . . .

• None Found