So:
The fact is, what Stein said had nothing to do with Annett's point. Stein is trying to deconstruct the positive influence of the Gospel, as well as using the sins of Christians to dismiss the historical contributions of the Christian Faith. Contributions that were still taught as late as the 1980s when I attended a state university and learned from decidedly not-Christian professors. That Christians may have raped teddy bears is irrelevant to the role that the Christian Gospel had in revolutionizing the world's attitude about a host of issues, including the worth of the poor, the meek and the sanctity of human life. Mr. Annett should have reiterated that valid point.
Instead, Mr. Annett reminds me of the type of person I don't want by my side if I have to charge into battle. Children of the Christian West have made acquiescence, surrender, compromise, and cowering before opposition our generational trademark. We have focused so much on the sins of our ancestors, we'd rather let Moloch eat our children than take the chance on being as horrible as those reprehensible old timers in their defense. We see that in the tens of millions of aborted pregnancies. We see it in the staggering suicide, homicide and drug overdose rates among our youth. We see it as our society goes from 'nobody will ever change a minor's body' to proudly declaring the goal of changing our children's bodies - consequences be damned - and parents can head to the cornfield if they don't like it.
All of these developments are the result of those like Mr. Annett who, when met with a clear attack on the unique heritage of our Faith and the positives of its inheritance, is happy to charge forth with white flag waving. I don't know if it's cowardice or a lack of belief. I just know there comes a time when what we call virtue is merely cowardice with a Jesus mask.
What timing. I just started reading this article yesterday myself.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I find the modern anti-white racism to be the most brilliant use of racism in the history of racism. Take all the racism that we've condemned for the last few generations - and apply it to your own ethnic group. Racism is usually about power, about justifying treating 'those' people thus and such. In this case, white liberals make it clear all whites are racist, genetically guilty of the racism of all whites, and deserve what they get. The only way to dodge this is to be redeemed by the leftthink of modern liberalism. Then, and only then, are your sins of being white forgiven. The troubling development is how many non-white/non-Christians are starting to warm up to this way of thinking. But again, racism is usually about power, and I don't think we've gone far in getting rid of the natural desire of mankind for power.
DeleteI've noticed that "Judeo-Christian" is used only in places where "Christian" would have worked just as well.
ReplyDeleteThis became particularly clear after hearing a radio pundit talk about the importance of "Judeo-Christian" holidays like Easter and Christmas, and then later go on to say that Israel was a strong nation because of its "Jewish Values."
This has an importance when it comes to this tweet, because I've found that people who stick only to the terminology "Judeo-Christian" don't take the Christian tradition seriously. (I'm contrasting people who use the term exclusively to those who will use it when others use it.) It's some sort of abstract thing that did a lot of good, but their theology and such is severely lacking. For example I've encountered many people who are all about "Judeo-Christian" values, but are surprised to hear that these would certainly mean standing against usury; that isn't part of their squishy "somehow this philosophy makes things nice" worldview.
So it's not surprising that someone using this terminology would immediately fold at the lamest pushback.
You’re right. I call that the great Ecclesial Surrender. When the world in the 20th Century began pushing and pushing against the Christian Faith, and Christians and their leaders simply surrendered and retreated. The 'Judeo-Christian' label is not inaccurate. But like so many things by the later 20th Century, it came to be a dodge used to avoid offending people. Sort of like Happy Holidays ceasing to be an alternat way of saying Merry Christmas, and becoming the mandated way to say Merry Christmas. Or moving from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Or when I was a minister in the 90s, I recall the debates about mentioning JC when in mixed company. If asked to pray at a community service, in deference to ‘others’, shouldn’t we drop the specifics and just keep the prayers generic? All of this obviously led to subsequent generations having little to no knowledge of anything specific to Christianity – apart from the bad of course.
Delete