It is interesting finding this post at the same time this ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/10-reasons-why-reading-the-bible-makes-us-more-progressive/ ) seems to be getting popular with people I know. It seems that by most of this guy's points that the "liberal" trending "more Bible reading" Christian would tend to support the ACA. But, I for the life of me do not see how it is *just* to advocate under their own principles for the government to put young couples that were making it just fine pre-ACA to now being without insurance because they cannot afford it post-ACA (and have to pay the penalty) in the middle of a field filled with financial landmines.
1. Of course, it's right and good to pay our taxes, help the poor, treat immigrants well, care for the environment, etc. However, the problem is the way the article is written it makes these more central to Christianity than "doctrine" (as the author himself says). But doctrine is extremely important, especially the gospel, and it should be central and foundational in Christianity.
For example, when we help the poor we don't wish to help them in terms of giving them money, food, shelter, and so forth alone, right? We also wish to teach them about who God is, how God has spoken to us in his word, what God has done for us in sending his only Son Jesus Christ to live a sinless and perfect life and die on the cross for his people, that he was raised again, that he will come again, that there will be a new heavens and a new earth, that there will be a day of judgment for those who do not repent of their sins and trust in Christ, and on and on we could go.
It's possible to help the poor, the suffering, the oppressed, the widows, the orphans, immigrants to our lands, and many others to the best that we can, but if we don't also give them the gospel and build them up in doctrine, then it'll all have been for naught. We may have saved their lives in the here and now, only to see their souls lost for all eternity.
Similarly, we can and within reason should take care of God's creation including many of his creatures and the environment, but if we don't teach people about the resurrection, the new heavens and the new earth, and so forth, then we'll have missed quite a lot.
If people make "social justice" issues more central to Christianity than the gospel itself, then what will become of the gospel? It'll be made more peripheral. Perhaps someday it'll be entirely lost in churches that have done this.
2. He also draws a false dichotomy when he says: "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God isn’t judging us by whether or not we get all of our doctrine right– he’s judging us by whether or not we get the 'love one another' part right."
But in Scripture God can judge people for having false doctrine as well as for not loving our neighbor.
3. He likewise says, "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that I don’t have it all together."
Ironically, he has it "together" enough to come to the sorts of conclusions he comes to. After all, if he truly believes he doesn't "have it all together," then why is he so sure "Reading The Bible Makes Us More Progressive"?
4. I know there are trends pushing both liberals and conservatives to support universal health care. The idea is it's good for society to provide health care for everyone. Not just people who can afford it, but also people who can't afford health care. Or who otherwise can't access health care.
And of course many of us are sympathetic to people who can't afford or access health care. We want to help others. We don't want to see them having to pay exorbitant health care bills. Where people have to go to such ends as to mortgage their homes or residences or otherwise accrue thousands of dollars of debt in order to pay for mom or dad or baby sister's cancer treatment. Who wants to see that?
However, is the solution to have the gov't mandate everyone must chip in for everyone else? That the gov't ultimately runs our health care system? That doctors are reimbursed at gov't rates if they use this or that insurance (which for many specialties is so low that it's arguably not worth having attended and paid for med school and gone through so many years of grueling training to become a doctor in the first place)? That insurance companies must provide insurance in the way the gov't wishes and to the people the gov't wishes they provide insurance to even at considerable cost to their business? That by and large the working middle class have to subsidize almost everyone else?
There are many other issues involved and distinctions to draw. But anyway that's the debate.
Indeed, if doctrine is peripheral to our Christianity, then it threatens to become practically insignificant and inconsequential to our lived lives. It's more important to feed the hungry than to know the basis for why we should feed the hungry. If this happens, then what good reason is there to care for others, care for creation, etc.?
Aggreed, your #4 is where I was going with my comment. The ACA is doing that very thing right now to people I know. The person at the link, by their own standard of fighting for justice, they should fight against the ACA because it is putting people I know in that very situation. But they don't. It exposes their hypocrisy in my opinion.
It is interesting finding this post at the same time this ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/10-reasons-why-reading-the-bible-makes-us-more-progressive/ ) seems to be getting popular with people I know. It seems that by most of this guy's points that the "liberal" trending "more Bible reading" Christian would tend to support the ACA. But, I for the life of me do not see how it is *just* to advocate under their own principles for the government to put young couples that were making it just fine pre-ACA to now being without insurance because they cannot afford it post-ACA (and have to pay the penalty) in the middle of a field filled with financial landmines.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, defectivebit.
Delete1. Of course, it's right and good to pay our taxes, help the poor, treat immigrants well, care for the environment, etc. However, the problem is the way the article is written it makes these more central to Christianity than "doctrine" (as the author himself says). But doctrine is extremely important, especially the gospel, and it should be central and foundational in Christianity.
For example, when we help the poor we don't wish to help them in terms of giving them money, food, shelter, and so forth alone, right? We also wish to teach them about who God is, how God has spoken to us in his word, what God has done for us in sending his only Son Jesus Christ to live a sinless and perfect life and die on the cross for his people, that he was raised again, that he will come again, that there will be a new heavens and a new earth, that there will be a day of judgment for those who do not repent of their sins and trust in Christ, and on and on we could go.
It's possible to help the poor, the suffering, the oppressed, the widows, the orphans, immigrants to our lands, and many others to the best that we can, but if we don't also give them the gospel and build them up in doctrine, then it'll all have been for naught. We may have saved their lives in the here and now, only to see their souls lost for all eternity.
Similarly, we can and within reason should take care of God's creation including many of his creatures and the environment, but if we don't teach people about the resurrection, the new heavens and the new earth, and so forth, then we'll have missed quite a lot.
If people make "social justice" issues more central to Christianity than the gospel itself, then what will become of the gospel? It'll be made more peripheral. Perhaps someday it'll be entirely lost in churches that have done this.
2. He also draws a false dichotomy when he says: "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God isn’t judging us by whether or not we get all of our doctrine right– he’s judging us by whether or not we get the 'love one another' part right."
But in Scripture God can judge people for having false doctrine as well as for not loving our neighbor.
3. He likewise says, "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that I don’t have it all together."
Ironically, he has it "together" enough to come to the sorts of conclusions he comes to. After all, if he truly believes he doesn't "have it all together," then why is he so sure "Reading The Bible Makes Us More Progressive"?
4. I know there are trends pushing both liberals and conservatives to support universal health care. The idea is it's good for society to provide health care for everyone. Not just people who can afford it, but also people who can't afford health care. Or who otherwise can't access health care.
DeleteAnd of course many of us are sympathetic to people who can't afford or access health care. We want to help others. We don't want to see them having to pay exorbitant health care bills. Where people have to go to such ends as to mortgage their homes or residences or otherwise accrue thousands of dollars of debt in order to pay for mom or dad or baby sister's cancer treatment. Who wants to see that?
However, is the solution to have the gov't mandate everyone must chip in for everyone else? That the gov't ultimately runs our health care system? That doctors are reimbursed at gov't rates if they use this or that insurance (which for many specialties is so low that it's arguably not worth having attended and paid for med school and gone through so many years of grueling training to become a doctor in the first place)? That insurance companies must provide insurance in the way the gov't wishes and to the people the gov't wishes they provide insurance to even at considerable cost to their business? That by and large the working middle class have to subsidize almost everyone else?
There are many other issues involved and distinctions to draw. But anyway that's the debate.
Indeed, if doctrine is peripheral to our Christianity, then it threatens to become practically insignificant and inconsequential to our lived lives. It's more important to feed the hungry than to know the basis for why we should feed the hungry. If this happens, then what good reason is there to care for others, care for creation, etc.?
DeleteAggreed, your #4 is where I was going with my comment. The ACA is doing that very thing right now to people I know. The person at the link, by their own standard of fighting for justice, they should fight against the ACA because it is putting people I know in that very situation. But they don't. It exposes their hypocrisy in my opinion.
Delete