The Cult of Christ, run by Matthew the Dyspraxic Fundamentalist has done a pretty sweet run down of different christians.
Yes, it's stereotypes. But I think they're pretty sharp and an accurate portrayl of how the grace of God runs through all people.
The Gospel Incarnated in Subcultural Form
Christian Hippie
Christian Skinhead
Christian Punk
Christian Biker
Christian Republican Voter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Thanks a lot for the link.
My point in the post is to show how Christians can live differing lifestyles and sometimes view life differently, while still being under the transformative influence of the Word of God.
God Bless
Matt
:( Where do I fit?
It seems to me that the categories are focused on a "radical" element that exists in society, intentionally or otherwise leaving out any description of a majority of America's Christians that do not fit into any of these categories. That's OK, cause the analysis is believeable for the given character profiles. Understanding another's inner motivations and intentions are probably 50% of learning to get along with other people. The other 50% is one's desire to do so. So kudos for tackling 50% of it.
I think there are several other categories that could be explored that would help this radical side deal with their aversion to a large segment of Christians who don't share their unique (and in many cases God given) passion. Some might be:
Christian Service Industry Worker and Family Provider (many of the early Christians)
Christian Entrepreneur (Lydia, in Acts)
Christian Parents (Timothy's Greek father and Jewish mother)
Christian Government Activist (tax collectors and political figures)
Christian Bake Sale Specialists (finding a sweet way to make it happen)
Christian Scrap Bookers (historical documentors - Luke)
Christian Socialists (transfer of wealth to the impoverished)
Christian Wealth Builders (Paul's financiers)
Christian Warriors (defense contractors, military, etc., those that level the world's playing field against evil)
And the list goes on. It would be nice if the relatively small group of people in the linked article could grow in their understanding and appreciation of this larger group.
BCBC Friend, some of the categories you list were beyond the scope of my post, for instance parent and entrepeneur. The reason being that the post was focused on the philosophy that undergirds lifestyles.
Also, part of the reason why I chose those particular categories is because they are dissident factions in society.
I was arguing that in some ways the adoption of the Skinhead or Hippy identity, while unconvetional and contrasting with the lifestyle of most Christians can be as much expressions of a Christian commitment as the conservatism of the Republican Voter.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Point accepted. I enjoyed your article and the insights it brought out, just wanted to bring out the "elephants" in the proverbial room. I think that "parent" as a philosophical lifestyle is just as germaine to your article as "hippy", having been privy to both, and finding myself at times dissident with the culture in the same ways now as a parent.
Your welcome matt. Quality content is always welcome. :D
FAICA, you're not a radical in a sense as posted, which was understandably limited in scope. It's a heck of a long post to begin with.
Jim, those all seem like good targets to analyze.
Would that we all could mirror ourselves after Christ instead of counter-culture models, many of which are based in rebellion. Sometimes even rebellion with a wink and a smile.
I think, Matt, the key is in your very words, "the transformative influence" of God's Word and the Holy Spirit acting through that Word. I know that for myself, I have plenty of transforming still needed. Way too much of the "old man" hangs around for my liking.
you forgot the christian libertarian.
he knows that all rights come from our Creator, and is wary of govt intrusions.
he opposes the welfare socialist state, and prefers to give generously of his own accord, out of a christian love for the downtrodden instead of the govt taking through force and misdirecting the money to enable further downtroddeness, or to buy political support.
he belives freedom of religion is also the freedom to choose the wrong religion, or no religion at all, and opposes govt intervention or favoritism towards one belief over another.
in a crazy world, he clings to his faith for his salvation, and doesnt buy into false prophets of hope.
and he clings to his guns to guarantee his Creator endowed freedoms from those selling socialism to the stupid.
Gino, do you mind if I ask you an off topic question?
Supposing a family become homeless.
Obviously, you don't think the government should provide the family with housing.
Do you think the government should take their children into foster care or should they leave them to live on the streets?
you see DF, this question shows that you grew up after LBJ and the great society that expanded govt and welfare to epic proportions. you have no concept of any other way.
as a christian, do you support forcing another man's hard earned $$ into the hands of somebody else? its called 'theft' in the bible.
before we had govt nanny-statism, there was something called 'private charity'.
my church has always had operations to help those in need.
its what christians do.
back in 1918, my grandfather lost his town, and home, in a tornado.
the convent nearby provided housing and food for all. those who still had their homes opened their doors to other's kids as well.
nobody went homeless, or hungry.
govt programs have destroyed that sense of comunity that used to be shared by all. the same sense of community that largely got mankind through millenia of disasters and downturns.
and dont forget... govt creates more homelessness than it solves through restrictions on building and other forms of social engineering. restrict housing and you automatically increase its cost, just like oil drilling. the ones who suffer the most are those who cant afford the inflated prices.
In defense of DF, there are things that governments do well, and should have the authority to do, trumping individual liberties. The alternative to government if individual liberty always trumps government authority is anarchy. I don't ever want to go there. America did not become great by promoting that.
But I agree with Gino that the Great Society made a change in the balance between individual liberty and government. OK, I'll spill the beans - I believe how a homeless person became that way is important to how and what type of aid should be rendered. The Great Society changed that belief to a no-fault arrangement. See Marvin Olasky's book: The Tragedy of American Compassion for a much better analysis of this that we can do in a blog.
the only things govt does well is expand its power, and wage war.
notice: both are in its own self interest.
it screws the pooch on everything else.
if you belive that govt authority should only be used to guarantee liberty, give yourself an A+.
Gino, it was only a few decades ago that in our country, the government did not provide homeless families with housing. And frequently, families did end up losing their homes and having their children taken away from them.
There are lots of countries where the state does not provide housing and where there are children living on the streets.
It does seem reasonable to suppose that families becoming homless is a real possibilty, even in the kind of society that you envision. Some people do not have any relatives to help them, sometimes charities are short of money and some people, through no fault of their own are not popular with their communities.
So, if you don't mind my repeating the question:
If a family lose their home and have nowhere to go, should the state take their children into foster care or should these children be left to live on the streets?
and you assume only the state can do foster care?
my great grandmother bore 18 kids, but fed and sheltered about 30.
of course, nowdays, the govt would be all up her ass for having too many kids sleeping in a bed, too many people sharing too few rooms, or requiring chores from every mouth that feeds.
Gino, help me out. I am trying to understand your position.
Is the state ever justified in taking action to protect the welfare of a child?
ever justified?
of course.
but that was not the question.
nor the issue.
the topic was the welfare state, and i think it does more harm than good.
Gino, I would never deny that the welfare state can do harm.
However, I think it is a necessary evil.
I asked about homelessness because I think this is a relatively clear cut issue.
If a family become homeless we might prefer that they receive aid from relatives, but assuming this is not possible, the state has three options:
1. It can provide housing to the family.
2. It can leave them and their children to live on the streets.
3. It can take their children away from them.
If the state leaves the children to live on the streets, they are likely to come to harm.
If the state puts the children in foster care, they are likely to come to harm too, as children who are taken away from their parents tend to fail at school and get into crime.
It seems clear to me that the least harmful option is for the state to provide housing to homeless families.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Post a Comment