评论
打印
BY RUSSELL MOORE
拉塞尔·摩尔
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.
现在，似乎毒害我们文化生态系统的恐惧似乎不是来自外部威胁的危险，而是来自被自己“部落”“流放”的恐惧。这就是人们退回意识形态孤岛的原因。没有人愿意被指责与“敌人”对话，无论是在社交媒体上，还是在世界各地的政府最高层。
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).
在我看来，勇气是建立在一种自信和个人认同感的基础上的，这种自信和个人认同感超越了我们在这个有毒的时代所看到的一切。正是这种认同感促使使徒保罗在传播福音的过程中克服了对一切事物（包括群众暴动、政府处决）的恐惧。“我现在是在寻求人的喜悦呢，还是在寻求神的喜悦呢？”他写道。“我若仍要讨人喜欢，就不是基督的仆人了”（ 加拉太书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.
无论是在圣经中，还是在世界历史上，我们经常看到这样的例子：有信念的男男女女克服恐惧的方法是，要以比现在更长远的眼光看待问题。罗杰威廉姆斯（创建罗德岛的清教徒神学家）必须独自走出荒野，为了未来生活在自由中的社区。现在的孤独感往往是日后社区繁荣的关键。
BY BEN SHAPIRO
本·夏皮罗
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.
我们在美国看到的分歧——我们在政治中已经预料到的党派仇恨——并不是凭空产生的。它始于奥巴马政府时期；美国总统唐纳德•特朗普当选只是这些分歧的一个症状。毫无疑问，特朗普的过激言辞挑衅本质加剧了此前存在的分歧。但我们需要明白，这些分歧远不止于此：他可能明天就会消失，但社会结构仍将四分五裂。
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.
最近有很多人在谈论走出社会泡沫，在人类层面上与他人面对面交流的必要性。但是，只有在共同的道德框架的支持下，社会关系才能生效。哈佛大学社会学家罗伯特·帕特南指出，除非存在共同的价值观，否则社区的多样性往往无法构建社会结构；他举了教会和军队的例子。但即使是我们最基本的价值观现在也有分歧。言论自由？许多左翼人士认为，这是对不公平等级制度的重新定位。对有限政府的承诺？至少有一半的美国人想要一个大得多的政府。甚至“我们生活在一个自由的国家，有能力改变生活”的信念如今变成了有争议的命题。
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，美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马在第二次就职演说中表示，“忠实于我们的建国文件，并不要求我们对生活的每个方面都达成一致。这并不意味着我们都以完全相同的方式定义自由，或遵循同样的幸福之路。”这也许在一定程度上是正确的，但如果我们希望在自由的旗帜下团结起来，我们必须就自由的构成达成一致。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
