A Thought-provoking article on health care reform

Last fall, David Goldhill wrote an article that seemed to get a lot of attention.  I finally read it this summer and now I’m finally posting about it.  Sure, health care reform passed in March, but I don’t think anybody believes that will be the last word.  Many liberals felt it fell short of their hopes and they will almost certainly press for future reforms along the same lines, and many conservatives want it repealed.  So I think that it’s still a relevant topic, if only to become more informed for the whatever the next round of proposals is.

Goldhill, a Democrat, argues that the health care system is based on many faulty premises, like the idea that health insurance should pay for everything.  Two of the subtitles in the article show some of his important points: “Health Care Isn’t Health (Or Happiness)” and “Health Insurance Isn’t Health Care.”

I could do the hard work of summarizing the article, but instead I’m going to give an excerpt the estimable Peter Leithart’s post (from which I originally learned of Goldhill’s article) in which he includes two key quotes that show the gist of the argument:

The problem is with the incentives built into the system: “Accidentally, but relentlessly, America has built a health-care system with incentives that inexorably generate terrible and perverse results. Incentives that emphasize health care over any other aspect of health and well-being. That emphasize treatment over prevention. That disguise true costs. That favor complexity, and discourage transparent competition based on price or quality. That result in a generational pyramid scheme rather than sustainable financing. And that—most important—remove consumers from our irreplaceable role as the ultimate ensurer of value.”

The solution is not the kind of reform on the table in DC; insisting on universal insurance is only dealing out more of the problem in Goldhill’s view.  Rather, the solution is to return the consumer to the center of the system: “To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.”

I’d really recommend the article.  I don’t know if all of his solutions are right, but the analysis of the system seems quite good.

No unions, no paid sick days, no layoffs, no unshared profits

Religion and Ethics Newsweekly had a story over the summer about a Cleveland company called Lincoln Electric.  Check out the video in the link (a little less than 10 minutes) or see the transcript by clicking on the link.  Do you think that this is a good business model?  I wish I knew more about business and economics so I’d have a better answer.

Book Review of David VanDrunen’s “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture”

Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture

Copyright © 2010 by David VanDrunen

Published by Crossway Books

PRELIMS: This book was provided by Crossway for my personal review.

First off, Dr. VanDrunen is a credible author on the points in which he engages. He is a studied scholar in the realm of divinity and law. Such background is necessary for the topic in which he engages. Secondly, this book is much needed in the “Evangelical” world today as the church struggles and flounders through the murky issues of Christian engagement of culture, politics, etc. Lastly, VanDrunen approaches this work from the rich heritage of the “Two-Kingdom” theory you will find in Augustine, Luther, Calvin (although open to debate), and many contemporary Reformed thinkers.

THE GOOD:

VanDrunen establishes a historical understanding of the issues of how God rules in the world generally and in the Church specifically. He is well aware of Niebuhr’s work on “Christ and Culture” and establishes the framework of the debate judiciously. Before making an inductive thesis in support of the “Two-Kingdom” perspective, he engages critically in modern distortions of the Christians obligation to the world: N.T. Wright and the Emergent Church. His criticisms are insightful and helpful. Read the book for the nitty gritty.

I commend VanDrunen’s covenantal redemptive-historical framework throughout the book. He deals specifically with the covenant with Adam and how it consisted of his tending the garden (priestly duties), as well as governing the land (kingly duties). If Adam and his righteous progeny had succeeded, eternal bliss and rest would have followed, meaning that the “Creation Mandate” had a goal in view. Adam and Eve weren’t to perpetually bear children and work the land forever and ever as the last climatic act in their God-given charge. The priestly duties would have brought about consummated holiness in destroying the serpent and partaking of the tree of life, while the kingly duties would have brought earth under perfect subjection and thus a perfect consummate rest from labor. VanDrunen dedicates an entire chapter in elaborating upon these themes because the rest of the book makes no sense apart from this framework.  VanDruned then dedicates an entire chapter to exactly how Jesus has and will fulfill these charges given to Adam. VanDrunen states the following:

Before the second Adam no one accomplished the task of the first Adam, and after the second Adam no one needs to accomplish it. The last Adam has completed it once and for all. Christians will attain the original destiny of life in the world-to-come, but we do so not by picking up the task where Adam left off but by resting entirely on the work of Jesus Christ, the last Adam who accomplished the task perfectly.

 How did Christ accomplish Adam’s original task perfectly? Jesus did not personally fill the earth with his descendants or exercise dominion over all creatures in his human nature during his earthly ministry. But as considered in chapter 2, Adam was to have his entire obedience in the entire world determined through a particular test in a particular location. So it was for the last Adam. Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was confronted by the devil who tried to entice Christ to obey him, and King Jesus resisted the devil and conquered him (Matt. 4:1–11; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14). Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was called to priestly service, and Christ the Great High Priest purified God’s holy dwelling and opened the way for human beings back into his presence (Heb. 9:11–28; 10:19–22). Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was to enter God’s royal rest in the world-to- come upon finishing his work perfectly, and this is precisely what Christ did, entering into heaven itself, taking his seat at God’s right hand, ministering in the heavenly tabernacle, and securing our place in the world-to-come (Heb. 1:3; 4:14–16; 7:23–28).

This is absolutely essential for issues of Christianity and culture! If Christ is the last Adam, then we are not new Adams. To under- stand our own cultural work as picking up and finishing Adam’s original task is, however unwittingly, to compromise the sufficiency of Christ’s work. Christ perfectly atoned for all our sins, and hence we have no sins left to atone personally. Likewise, Christ perfectly sustained a time of testing similar to Adam’s: he achieved the new creation through his flawless obedience in this world. He has left nothing yet to be accomplished. God indeed calls Christians to suf fer and to pursue cultural tasks obediently through our lives. But to think that our sufferings contribute to atoning for sin or that our cultural obedience contributes to building the new creation is to compromise the all-sufficient work of Christ.

VanDrunen even pulls out the exclamation mark in reference to how important understanding the work of Christ is for determining our own obligations as a Christian.  We are now heavenly citizens who taste the world to come, but do not in any way bring it about. He states:

Compassion Fatigue

Krista Tippett recently interviewed Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.  Kristof has become well-known for his writing about humanitarian crises around the world, and has praised the concern of evangelicals for some of these crises.

Tippett and Kristof discussed compassion fatigue and how Kristof tries to work around it by describing an individual who illustrates the larger issue:

Ms. Tippett: But there’s some way you put that and somewhere you said that the emotional response becomes a portal and then rational arguments like numbers can play a supporting role.

Mr. Kristof: Exactly.

Ms. Tippett: It’s really interesting.

Mr. Kristof: That opening, that connection, that empathy, is really an emotional one. It’s done based on individual stories. And we all know that there is this compassion fatigue as the number of victims increases, but what the research has shown that is kind of devastating is that the number at which we begin to show fatigue is when the number of victims reaches two.

Ms. Tippett: Right. Would you tell the story about Rokia and Moussa, the photograph that they used to illustrate this?

Mr. Kristof: Yeah. This is from the work of a psychologist called Paul Slovic. There were experiences where people were shown a photo of a starving girl from Mali called Rokia, a seven-year-old girl, and asked to contribute in various different scenarios. And then also a boy named Moussa. And essentially people would donate a lot of money. If they saw that Rokia was hungry, they wanted to help her. Likewise, when they saw a picture of Moussa, they wanted to help him. But the moment you put the two of them together and asked people to help both Rokia and Moussa, then at point donations dropped. And by the time you ask them to donate to 21 million hungry people in West Africa, you know, nobody wanted to contribute at all.

Ms. Tippett: Because they’re overwhelmed by that, or it doesn’t spark the same reaction that actually enables people to act. Is that…

Mr. Kristof: Yeah. I think it’s not real. I mean, I think that my job as a journalist is to find these larger issues that I want to address, but then find some microcosm of it, some Rokia who can open those portals and hopefully get people to care. And once that portal is open, then you can indeed begin to put in some of the background, some of the context, some of the larger issues, and hopefully get people to engage with that issue.

The blog for Tippett’s NPR show, On Being (it used to be Speaking of Faith), had a bit more on this phenomenon:

In the non-profit world, some organizations have found success by creating a model around this idea — child sponsorship organizations or Kiva, for example. Microfinance organizations weren’t new, but a model in which one could seemingly loan directly to an individual was. As a result, Kiva exploded onto the American donor scene. Even though in both of these cases donations aren’t going directly into the hands of the recipient, Kiva capitalized on the human instinct to take action to help one person in need. Organizations like DonorsChoose.org have used this same model to fund education projects within the United States.

It is not altogether shocking that we feel more compassion when we have relatable stories. But what stands out in Slovic’s paper is a study in which groups were either given the story of Rokia, a list of statistics, or the story of Rokia combined with more general statistics.

“Donations in response to the identified individual, Rokia, were far greater than donations in response to the statistical portrayal of the food crisis. Most important, however, and most discouraging, was the fact that coupling the statistical realities with Rokia’s story significantly reduced the contributions to Rokia. Alternatively, one could say that using Rokia’s story to ‘put a face behind the statistical problem’ did not do much to increase donations.”

My point here isn’t that more people just need to “do something” and “make a difference” as if all well-motivated actions are equally valuable.  I have some more to write about intelligent, biblical compassion, which I hope to do soon.  But compassion fatigue seems to be a reality that we need to think about too, as well as something in human nature that cries out for the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in all of us.

Respect for the Dead

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a masterful document – I wish we Anglicans had something like it. Due to my Mom’s death, I read what it says about the treatment of the dead:

The dying should be given attention and care to help them live their last moments in dignity and peace. They will be helped by the prayer of their relatives, who must see to it that the sick receive at the proper time the sacraments that prepare them to meet the living God.
The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit.
Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious.
The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body.

I love how the Catechism deals with just about everything you can think of in life. I don’t like autopsies, giving organs or cremation, but the Catholic approach does seem sensible to me. And it must be comforting to know that there are answers to these things rather than simply making up an answer.

Outside the Catechism, canon law states:

ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS (Cann. 1176 – 1185)
§3. The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the deceased be observed; nevertheless, the Church does not prohibit cremation unless it was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine.

Dever on Jesus on Politics, State and Government

A week and a half ago, Mark Dever preached from Mark 12:13-17 in a sermon titled “Jesus Paid Taxes.” I listened to the sermon this morning as I walked the streets of Nampa on the way to the Flying M Coffee Garage. I suggest you listen to the audio from here:

Jesus Paid Taxes

There were several points made that I really appreciated, especially in light of the vocation series I’ve been working through. We are called, as Christians, to be good citizens, working for the good of the state we live in, in obedience to the government, and in ultimate obedience to God. The only time we should not obey the civil government is when they ask us to do something that contravenes God’s commands to us. Rebellion for personal betterment or personal protection from loss is not approved of on self-motivating grounds. Part of our witness is submitting to the law of the land. I feel like I’m giving away too much. Go and listen to the sermon (68 minutes total) and then come back.

After that, how does the following quote relate to your own life? What are ways that you can apply this in your own context?

“Give that coin back to Caesar, but give your life to God.”

The Beautifying Effects of the Gospel…or Brush Your Teeth and Chew With Your Mouth Closed

“One of the consequences of our culture’s slide away from the true faith has been a marked rise in Christians making their peace with various forms of uncleanliness — in food prep, in personal hygiene, with tattoos, in dumping litter, in sexual practices, or how they keep their living rooms and yards. “

One my good buddies Nick Smith (Pastor of Nampa United Reformed Church) gets a hat tip for pointing me to Wilson’s post,  “Jesus. Reason. Soap.” The quote above comes from Wilson’s post.

Ouch, but he’s right. Part of the creation mandate was to cultivate, and I would say beautify or maintain the beauty of creation. Because of sin, creation has been affected, but it still retains much majesty and glory. Part of the Mosaic law spoke to matters of hygiene, what to do with one’s body, etc, for the intention of separating Israel from the nations in their lifestyle. While I am not advocating that we keep the ceremonial law, it is important for us to note that Christ fulfilled the law…He was a lamb without spot or blemish. He was pure. He was clean.

Christ seeks to restore beauty in our lives, both inward and outward as part of His redemptive work in our lives. While the ceremonial law no longer applies, the substance of it still speaks to us…that we should cultivate a clean and beautiful life. It was to mark Israel as distinctly clean and beautiful. We also are to be marked off in such a way that our lives proclaim to the nations that our Lord is beautiful, that His ways are good. The way we dress, the way we eat, the way we host guests, all of these things matter. The Proverbs 31 woman beautifies her surroundings because she has a beautiful heart. Her husband and children are blessed because of her. Paul also said that outward training has some value and that we do need to tend inwardly first, but Paul didn’t say that tending outwardly was on no value, just puts it in its proper perspective.

“I want a real chaplain who believes in a real God and a real hell!”

“I want a real chaplain who believes in a real God and a real hell…your uncertainty is making things worse…I need someone who will look me in the eye and tell me how to find forgiveness because I am running out of time!!!”

My story -

When I visited my dying grandpa, I was in the role of a chaplain of sorts. It was incredibly awkward…this is the grandpa who modeled for me stability, love, and strength. I admired the man more than any other. He was full of humility and would speak ill of no one. I cry now thinking about him. I loved him. Anyhow, he wasn’t a church goer and believed that all “good” people essentially would end up in heaven. He also said that he has always sought to live his life according to the 10 Commandments. While a teen, I would simply nod– who was I too challenge my grandpa?

Well, as my grandpa was ill and not knowing if this would be the last time I would ever see him alive, I felt a “burning in my bones” that couldn’t be constrained. I could not watch him die while simply nodding my head in affirmation to his thoughts of being good and going to heaven. I looked him in his eyes and suggested that He ought to love the lawgiver more than the law. I told him about Jesus. His eyes watered. He was the most decent man I had ever known and who was I to convince him that he was a depraved sinner in risk of hell fire? I had to, for the sake of his soul, I had to…I wanted to. His watery eyes then looked hopeful as I pleaded with him to believe upon the work of Jesus for his salvation. I held his hand and prayed with him.

My grandpa Norman Hogaboam ended up returning home. I visited him and he asked me to do his funeral when he passed on. I looked down and agreed to do it, holding back tears. He was at peace with death. He died shortly after. I did his funeral, crying the whole time, and was able to share the hope I had spoken to him about and his acceptance of the lawgiver. My tears would have otherwise been full of guilt and remorse, even to this day. I can’t help but think that some other chaplain would have simply nodded in affirmation and patted him on the back for a life well lived…comforting him into hell.

I look forward to seeing my grandpa again and am grateful that God granted me the strength and boldness to share the Gospel with him.

Righteousness in the Sermon on the Mount

The radical righteousness that Christ explains in the Sermon on the M0unt is tough to understand and just as hard to apply.  Peter Leithart takes a shot in an article in Credenda Agenda.  He notes some interpretations: Christ wanted to replace the law, Christ wanted us to have better attitudes while following the law, or Christ gave us an impossible guide to righteousness so that we know our own sin.  Leithart disagrees: Christ meant us to do what he said.

Leithart argues that God wants our lives to follow the pattern of his restoring righteousness that redeems sinners and the creation: “The life that Jesus requires surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees because the practices, habits, and actions of disciples break through the perverse customs and habits of sinful humanity and bring the kingdom of God onto earth.”  This can be seen in the way that Matthew 5:21-48 is structured:

As Glen Stassen has convincingly argued, this section of the sermon is not a series of antinomies but a series of triads.  On murder, Jesus doesn’t say, “1) You have heard, do not murder, 2) but I say don’t hate.”  Rather, He says: 1) You have heard, do not murder, and those who murder are liable to court; 2) but I say that anger and insults leave you in danger of the court and even of hell; therefore 3) leave your offering and go be reconciled to your brother.  Only section 3 is an imperative.  Jesus commandment is not: “Don’t be angry.”  Jesus’ commandment is: “Go be reconciled.”  That is the greater righteousness.  Jesus never commands us to avoid anger.  He teaches how to defuse anger so that it doesn’t escalate to murder.  In that way, we share in the establishment of God’s kingdom of peace….

To be righteous as Jesus is righteous, it’s not enough to avoid anger or lust.  Jesus is not giving us a transformed set of purity regulations – “Avoid this, avoid that, don’t touch that!”  He gives us a set of positive commands.  To practice the righteousness greater than that of the scribes we have to obey Jesus’ commands in order to break through the chains of lust so that we can cultivate chaste relations with the opposite sex.  It’s not enough to avoid hating enemies; you need to do good to them, to break through the habits of hatred, counter-hatred, escalating hatred, that destroys life.

He also discusses lust, retaliation, and generosity to one’s enemies.  He concludes:

Our instinct is, Get real, Jesus!  His demands may all be great for a perfect world, but we don’t live in a perfect world.  We live in a hard world, and you’ve got to cut some corners, break some eggs, defend yourself, take a little bit of vengeance, if you’re going to survive.   Jesus says, No.  The whole issue comes down to trust.  Do we trust our Father to give us what you need?  Do we trust that we’ll still have clothes if we keep giving them away, that we’ll still have bread if we are generous, that we’ll still have a face if we keep letting our cheeks be used as a punching bag, that we’ll still have dignity if we give things away to our enemies?

Jesus says: Trust your Father, and obey my commandments.  Trust your Father, and live out the righteousness of that faith.  Trust your Father, and live the redemptive, transforming righteousness that surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

This interpretation has a lot to commend it.  As my friend Kevin is really good at pointing out, there’s still the question of whether there are limits to these attitudes (for example, giving someone money for drugs based on the command of giving to those who ask).  We’ve talked about this here and here.

Rick Hogaboam’s Sermon Notes on Galatians 2:10 “Remembering the Poor”

These are rough notes, designed really for self, but am posting as promised because I didn’t get to cover everything in the sermon:

Gal 2:10 “Remembering the Poor”

Galatians 2: 10 (ESV) — 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

-          If Paul is being exhaustive here, then doesn’t mesh well with Acts 15 Jerusalem council, may be referring to Acts 12 trip which would have been the very reason Paul was even there, delivering a collection from Antioch to Jerusalem.

-          “poor” : some possible interpretations;

• pious poor referred to the saints, those who were intentionally poor
• collective term for the whole Church in Jerusalem
• the poor believers in Jerusalem
• poor Christians in general
• the general poor in the Jerusalem area
• general poor
  • I think it is referring to poor believers in Jerusalem, but this does not negate the fact that Scripture elsewhere does call upon us to care for poor believers everywhere, and also to care for the poor in general.

-          “eager” : Paul was truly “forward”, eager, willing to fulfill this calling.

-

-          This was not an imposed fee upon Gentiles to send money to Jerusalem as a sort of ecclesiastical headquarters. -

How were poor cared for in OT?

-          Deuteronomy 15:7–11 (ESV) — 7 “If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, 8 but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. 9 Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and you be guilty of sin. 10 You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. 11 For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

• Notice that we will always have poor, we should be generous, God promises to help.
• Debt was forgiven in 7^th year so folks wouldn’t lend money when it got closer to that time, leaving people with no recourse.

-          Deuteronomy 16:16–17 (ESV) — 16 “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths. They shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed. 17 Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you.

• This was a mandated offering, amount unspecified

-          Leviticus 27:30–34 (ESV) — 30 “Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the Lord’s; it is holy to the Lord. 31 If a man wishes to redeem some of his tithe, he shall add a fifth to it. 32 And every tithe of herds and flocks, every tenth animal of all that pass under the herdsman’s staff, shall be holy to the Lord. 33 One shall not differentiate between good or bad, neither shall he make a substitute for it; and if he does substitute for it, then both it and the substitute shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.” 34 These are the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses for the people of Israel on Mount Sinai.

• This was a mandated specified tithe of the land given to the Levites for their landlessness, which was the barometer of wealth, not currency. Only fruit and flocks were subject to tithe as representative of one’s wealth and output in the land…sort of a land assessment.
• Since Jesus has replaced the priesthood, some argue that the idea of supporting pastors derives from these principals. The priests and pastors did not work “Secular” jobs to acquire wealth. They forego a life of attaining as much wealth as possible. Their vocation is ministry, set aside.
• We also see that giving to poor is considered the same as giving to Jesus (“least of these”). We give to Jesus as priest through works of mercy to the poor.

The Limits of “Civil Society”

Peter Leithart notes that appeals are often made to “civil society,” which he defines as “private and voluntary institutions distinct from both the bureaucracies of the nation-state and the economic institutions of the market,” as the counterbalance to state power or the market.  Chuck Colson, whom I respect greatly, often refers to Edmund Burke’s idea of “little platoons” in discussing the proper limits of government power.

Leithart, citing William Cavanaugh, thinks that the civil society itself may be “a construct of the modern nation state” and therefore unable to provide a real alternative power center to the state.  He contrasts this with the medieval church, an organized institution which did exercise a check on kings.  But civil society, in contrast, is an “amorphous cobble of associations.”  Thus,

Cavanaugh has pointed out, quite accurately, that the idea of civil society carries an implicit ecclesiology.  Advocates of civil society want to enlist churches into a program of national restoration.  The implicit ecclesiology is a thoroughly modern one: The church is not an alternative public or an alternative civic order, but a voluntary organization that assists the state because it has proven itself effective in forming a compliant citizenry.  But churches aren’t in the business of national restoration but are called to witness to and embody the kingdom to come.

More simply: Civil society is a prescription for social healing that relativizes the healing society.  It aims to restore brotherhood among men without acknowledging the Fatherhood of God, to restore communion without mention of the Spirit.  It is a proposal for social salvation that doesn’t make any mention of the Savior.

This tension is particularly concerning to postmillenialists like Leithart (here’s a good, short description of the way he looks at the future).  But it’s worth considering the assumptions that govern the way that churches interact with society.

Jennifer Knapp, Larry King, Ted Haggard, and Bob Botsford = Painful Television

I watched Larry King Live on Friday night and was pretty disappointed with just about everything I was hearing, even from “Evangelicals” Ted Haggard and Bob Botsford. Here’s a summary of what disappointed me:

1. Jen Knapp – She is obviously still conflicted from her body language. It was unclear if she actually viewed her behavior as sinful, but justified within a framework of “we’re all sinners” or if she actually thought her lifestyle was commendable within a Biblical framework. She sounded unsure about Scriptural warrant as she repeatedly said that the Bible was written in Greek and subject to various interpretations. She didn’t make a case for her lifestyle from Scripture other than to say that there are some who understand the text in a way that would permit homosexual behavior. I was also disappointed with the privatization of the faith in her references, “My faith”, “My journey”, etc.
2. Larry King – He was obviously bent on viewing her lifestyle as something that she is inclined towards. He even reasoned that if God is all-powerful, then our inclinations must be consistent with His will. Bob Botsford had a great opportunity to respond to this faulty epistemology, but he failed to connect with this soft toss (more on that later). King was picking and choosing from the Judeo-Christian worldview to validate certain actions, while condemning others…yet another opportunity for Botsford to respond too.
3. Ted Haggard – He kept reaffirming that God is love and the Bible is all about having a personal relationship with Jesus. He even said that since Knapp and Botsford are on their separate journeys, and that they are equally saved by grace, they should not be criticizing one another. With Haggard also privatizing the faith, he was essentially an unwitting ally to Knapp in the conversation. This over-privatizing of the faith explains why Haggard felt that he was mishandled by his church’s board and the Foursquare denomination when his own mis-discretions became public. He apparently thought that church discipline was “unloving” and incompatible with love towards those in sin. If Ted Haggard thought he was “saved” during his escapades, then he must feel himself in a bind to denunciate Jen Knapp’s actions so long as she professes to be a Christian. He is making a category error in the role of Church discipline in connection with assurance of salvation. His ecclesiology seems pretty whack, doesn’t even sound like he would discipline Jen Knapp. Weird stuff.
4. Bob Botsford – He is an Evangelical pastor who had a Bible with him, but seemed very uncomfortable to be there and very ill-prepared in the apologetics of pulling down strongholds. He is a learned man, based on his website, but seems as if he has never been trained in epistemology and critiquing post-modern thought and moral relativity. It is great to quote the Bible over and over again, but at some point you need to be able to show the inconsistency and foolishness of the opposition by denying them many of their presuppositions that guide their thoughts and questions. He failed to do that. He should have asked Jen Knapp and Larry King if they have any sexual ethics and what such is based on. He should have asked them if they supported pedophiles, incestuous intercourse, bestiality, and rape. If they said no to any of those scenarios, they should have been asked to give a defense for what authority their denunciations are based on. They would have been revealed as inconsistent and morally bankrupt, as the real hypocrites in the discussion. He had so many opportunities to challenge the uncertain exegesis of Jen Knapp, the selective epistemology of Larry King, and the doubletalk of Ted Haggard, but failed. I was screaming for Al Mohler, Greg Koukl, or even John MacArthur to show up on set and make a respectable defense of the Evangelical faith, but such was not the case.

In closing, this was painful to watch. I do pray for Jen Knapp and have many of her songs on my Ipod. The only plus I take from the show was that she was very conflicted within and she was hardly honest when she said that she is happier than she has ever been. That is absolutely not true. I pray that she would turn in repentance before she is totally given over by God to her obstinate heart.

Abortion and Disability

John Piper’s yearly Sanctity of Life Sunday sermon, “Born Blind for the Glory of God,” contained this powerful quote from The Weekly Standard:

With the development of prenatal genetic diagnosis, the drive toward eugenics has returned with a vengeance. Americans may heartily cheer participants in the Special Olympics, but we abort some 90 percent of all gestating infants diagnosed with genetic disabilities such as Down Syndrome, dwarfism, and spina bifida.

It’s obviously not a new fact, but it’s a contrast that can’t be made often enough.  I saw a little girl with Down Syndrome singing in the children’s choir at church this morning, and I have good friends whose beloved son is a teenager with Down Syndrome.  It’s terrifying to think that in many families, they simply would not have been allowed to be  born.

The article by Wesley Smith that Piper quotes can be found here.

The Elders of Christ Church (Moscow, ID) on Charity

One of the hard things to sort out in the Christian life is how one should respond to need.  At what point does giving to someone actually do harm?  At the one extreme, you can take Matthew 5:42 ["Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you." ESV)] to the limit and say that there are no conditions for giving, ever.  On the other, you might say that a person has to earn the right to charity.  Kevin and I were discussing this last year in the comments on this post, and I hope to get back to that discussion this weekend (this time I mean it, Kevin).

Here’s an attempt by Doug Wilson’s church elders to explore the issue of mercy in a recent document that they produced that explored a range of issues of Christian social responsibility, posted on Wilson’s blog.  The relevant section for this discussion:

Mercy
We affirm that the basis of our charity is to be our recognition of the mercy we have received from God (2 Cor. 4:1).We do not extend mercy because others have earned it and may demand it of us, but rather we extend it with the knowledge that we received it when we did not deserve it (Eph. 2:1-7). Freely we have received, freely we are to give (Matt. 10:8), and we are to give in this way without thought of repayment (Luke 14:12-13).

We deny that men must earn their right to be shown charity. No one can disqualify himself from the realm of mercy ministry by rebellion or sin. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Those who are merciful shall receive mercy (Matt. 5:7). In mercy we give nothing but what was given to us. At the same time, rebellion and sin do distort a person’s sense of what he needs to receive (Prov. 23:35). But we are called to give, as far as it is possible with us, what a person actually needs and not necessarily what he thinks he needs (Acts 3:6).

We affirm that charity should extend equally to the “deserving poor” (1 Cor. 16:1) as well as to the “undeserving poor” (2 Thess. 3:10). Charity makes a distinction between them, but only in what is given, not in a willingness to give. The deserving poor receive, for example, gifts of money (1 Cor. 16:1), clothing (Matt. 25:38), food (Matt. 25:37), and shelter (Matt. 25:38). The undeserving poor receive accountability (Prov. 6:9), a work ethic (2 Thess. 3:12), and godly teaching (Eph. 4:28). The gleaning laws of the Old Testament recognize this distinction plainly. The poor are defined as those who are “without,” and these different categories exist because people go without different things. Some are without Christ, and are spiritually poor, while others are without food, and are physically poor. Some, in danger of starvation, are absolutely poor, while others in First World countries are relatively poor because they have an older car. Charity should be extended to all, but intelligent charity requires a knowledge of what it is they are going without.

Thoughts on Theonomy, Just Laws, and Living in Two Kingdoms and More from Amos 2:1-3

Amos 2:1-3

¹ Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because he burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom. ² So I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the strongholds of Kerioth, and Moab shall die amid uproar, amid shouting and the sound of the trumpet; ³ I will cut off the ruler from its midst, and will kill all its princes with him,” says the Lord.

Interestingly, this oracle of judgment doesn’t concern Israel. Moab’s sin against Edom, which God had already pronounced judgment against earlier, is quite telling. While Israel is usually central to the reason why God judges the surrounding nations, here is one example where God’s judgment comes because of how one pagan nation treats another pagan nation. This highlight the sovereignty of God. Essentially Moab was desecrating graves and using the decomposing corpses to possibly make a whitewashing formula. One commentator quotes:

2:1 Moab’s representative crime neither harmed Israel nor concerned them in any way. Desecration of an Edomite king’s remains was Moab’s sin. Border fortifications between Moab and Edom suggest the probability that the two nations engaged in armed conflict from time to time. Warfare may have been the setting for the Moabite atrocity against the king of Edom.53 Either Edom’s king was burned to death, or his corpse was burned, or his skeletal remains were exhumed and burned to lime. The last suggestion best fits the wording, since the specific reference is to “the bones of Edom’s king.”
Burning the bones to lime suggests total destruction.54 The Targum interpreted the term rendered “as if to lime” to mean that the Moabites used the ashes of the king’s bones in a substance to whitewash houses. The treatment of a human being as mere material was reason enough for Amos’s indictment. Moab’s atrocious act disturbed the Edomite king’s resting place and in Moabite and Edomite thought prevented peace in the afterlife and perhaps even immortality.55 As J. Niehaus explains: “Crimes against humanity bring God’s punishment. This observation is a powerful motivation for God’s people to oppose the mistreatment and neglect of their fellow human beings.”56
Smith, B. K., & Page, F. S. (2001). Vol. 19B: Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (57–58). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

By what standard is God judging one pagan nation’s treatment of another? By His own standard. His law applies to pagan nations, even if they were not the particular recipients’ of such. This is one proof text for Theonomists, those who believe that all nations will be judged by God’s law and must conform to the standards of God’s Law. There are nuanced versions of it, and we are all theonomists in one sense and not in another. Sorting through these distinctions is no easy task.