評論
打印
BY RUSSELL MOORE
拉塞爾·摩爾
The fear that seems to toxify our cultural ecosystem right now seems to be less about danger from an external threat and more about the terror of being “exiled” from one’s own “tribe.” That’s the reason people are retreating into their ideological silos. No one wants to be accused of talking to “the enemy,” whether that’s on social media or in the highest levels of government around the world.
現在，似乎毒害我們文化生態系統的恐懼似乎不是來自外部威脅的危險，而是來自被自己“部落”“流放”的恐懼。這就是人們退回意識形態孤島的原因。沒有人愿意被指責與“敵人”對話，無論是在社交媒體上，還是在世界各地的政府最高層。
Courage is grounded, in my view, in a sense of confidence and of personal identity that transcends what we see around us in this toxic time. That sense of identity is what propelled the Apostle Paul to overcome fear of everything from mob violence to execution by the authorities as he carried the gospel around the known world of the time. “For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God?” he wrote. “If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).
在我看來，勇氣是建立在一種自信和個人認同感的基礎上的，這種自信和個人認同感超越了我們在這個有毒的時代所看到的一切。正是這種認同感促使使徒保羅在傳播福音的過程中克服了對一切事物（包括群眾暴動、政府處決）的恐懼?！拔椰F在是在尋求人的喜悅呢，還是在尋求神的喜悅呢？”他寫道。“我若仍要討人喜歡，就不是基督的仆人了”（ 加拉太書1:10）。
We see the example constantly, whether in the Bible or in world history: The way to overcoming fear is for men and women of conviction to take a longer-term view than the present moment. Roger Williams (the Puritan theologian who founded Rhode Island) must walk out into the wilderness alone, for the sake of future communities living in freedom. A sense of loneliness now is often the key to flourishing community later.
無論是在圣經中，還是在世界歷史上，我們經?？吹竭@樣的例子：有信念的男男女女克服恐懼的方法是，要以比現在更長遠的眼光看待問題。羅杰威廉姆斯（創建羅德島的清教徒神學家）必須獨自走出荒野，為了未來生活在自由中的社區?，F在的孤獨感往往是日后社區繁榮的關鍵。
BY BEN SHAPIRO
本·夏皮羅
The divisions we see in America—that seething partisan hatred we’ve come to expect in our politics—didn’t emerge from nowhere. It began during the Obama administration; President Donald Trump’s election was merely a symptom of those divisions. There’s no question that Trump’s overheated rhetoric and trollish nature have exacerbated pre-existing divisions. But we need to understand that those divisions run far deeper: He could disappear tomorrow, and the social fabric will remain torn.
我們在美國看到的分歧——我們在政治中已經預料到的黨派仇恨——并不是憑空產生的。它始于奧巴馬政府時期；美國總統唐納德•特朗普當選只是這些分歧的一個癥狀。毫無疑問，特朗普的過激言辭挑釁本質加劇了此前存在的分歧。但我們需要明白，這些分歧遠不止于此：他可能明天就會消失，但社會結構仍將四分五裂。
There’s been a lot of talk recently about the necessity of getting outside our social bubbles and dealing with each other in person, on a human level. But social connections can only be effective when supported by a common moral framework. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam points out that diversity in communities doesn’t tend to build social fabric unless there are common values; he gives the examples of churches and the military. But even our most basic values are now divided. Free speech? Many on the intersectional left believe that it is a reimposition of an unjust hierarchy. A commitment to limited government? Half the country, at least, wants a far larger government. Even the belief that we live in a free country in which you are capable of changing your life is a controversial proposition these days.
最近有很多人在談論走出社會泡沫，在人類層面上與他人面對面交流的必要性。但是，只有在共同的道德框架的支持下，社會關系才能生效。哈佛大學社會學家羅伯特·帕特南指出，除非存在共同的價值觀，否則社區的多樣性往往無法構建社會結構；他舉了教會和軍隊的例子。但即使是我們最基本的價值觀現在也有分歧。言論自由？許多左翼人士認為，這是對不公平等級制度的重新定位。對有限政府的承諾？至少有一半的美國人想要一個大得多的政府。甚至“我們生活在一個自由的國家，有能力改變生活”的信念如今變成了有爭議的命題。
In 2013, President Barack Obama stated in his second inaugural that “being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness.” That may be true on the margins, but we must agree on what liberty constitutes if we hope to be united under its banner.
2013年，美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬在第二次就職演說中表示，“忠實于我們的建國文件，并不要求我們對生活的每個方面都達成一致。這并不意味著我們都以完全相同的方式定義自由，或遵循同樣的幸福之路?！边@也許在一定程度上是正確的，但如果我們希望在自由的旗幟下團結起來，我們必須就自由的構成達成一致。
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
