Andrew Sullivan always has something interesting to say. But his most recent article for TIME simply blew me away. You can read it here, but make sure you read the whole thing (the last paragraph is the icing on the proverbial cake.)
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Mr. Sullivan is a very interesting character and seems to have great wit. I however must disagree with his prose about Christianity. In my opinion a person who can live next door to an atheist and let them live their life without sharing the gospel with them doesn’t deserve the title Christian. Mr. Sullivan would say live and let live but really this is live and let die without Christ. I just can’t swallow this line of thinking. Jesus commands us to share the gospel and I don’t necessarily believe this takes the form of any political party. Politicians are usually centered on the need to get elected and not the general welfare of the public. This is in total contrast to Christianity where people are supposed to be selfless and care for the welfare of their fellow man. Christianity is defined by someone who follows after Christ and not by a political affiliation and on this point I find agreement with Sullivan.
I don't think he makes that point at all...
Obviously, he is addressing tolerance, but where do you find him stressing the "live and let live" scenario?
I guess I have an issue with tolerance because I feel this tolerance leads to apathy. If Sullivan did not mean this I apologize but this was the feeling I got after reading the article.
He doesn't seem apathetic to me because he talks about respecting the choices of others. To respect another's choice, you would have to know the basics of that choice. Respecting something is active, not passive. Not caring at all is passive.
I think the semantics of his writing style leave too much to the imagination in this case, though. I can see how he might come off as a bit apathetic.
He's a libertarian and he's British. That could explain the apparent apathy. By reading his blog though, I would venture to say he is not much of an apathetic person.
"So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist."-Sullivan
I agree there is a sad but all to often "us-them" sort of mentality carried by the "religious right". I also agree this is a problem. At the same time I think statements like the one above are simply a remix of the "us-them" problem.
I agree with Sullivan there does seem to be a problem, but his solution seems to be spelling the word christian differently (that was a mild joke).
I am a little hesitant to sum up all of the political and theological stances held by millions of people as one viewpoint either conservative, right winged, Christianist or whatever you want to call it. That hesitancy spawns out of hope for tolerance of liberal, homosexual, left winged, conservative, heterosexual, right winged, Christians, and non-Christians alike.
All that to say..."Us-Them" isn't good, but neither is more "Us and Thems"
Post a Comment