When the Christian Right becomes antinomian
This article from the Manchester Union Leader epitomizes the moral dark side of the conservative movement all too well.
No, opposing Obamacare is not "Satan's work." There are better and more efficient ways to deal with the health care crisis- and it is a crisis; America ranks 29th in the world in infant mortality. With all the disadvantages of Canada's socialized health care system, stillbirths are 33% less frequent in Canada than in the United States (a point, btw, which demolishes the allegation that our high infant mortality rate is due to a lower rate of stillbirths!). An appalling percentage of the American people lack decent health care because they are inadequately insured.
Healthcare co-ops, state-run programs, and a host of other approaches are far more promising than any sort of nationalized health insurance. I'm not even going to get into all the things that are wrong with the plethora of proposals on the Left where health care reform are concerned. But suffice it for the purposes of this post to point out that the premise of the Union Leader article is exactly wrong.
The poor do have a claim on our charity. God does not make that charity optional. He does not advise it. He commands it, on pain of sin.
Sure sounds like an obligation to me.
The argument that charity ceases to be charity when it is coerced has always struck me as being theologically perverse. It boils down to the notion that disobedience to God is OK if obedience doesn't happen to come spontaneously from the heart. There have actually been antinomians in Christian history who have taught such nonsense. But we are commanded to help our neighbor in need whether we want to our not, on pain of divine displeasure. That help is not optional- and yes, our neighbor does have a right to that help. That right is located in the fact that God in Christ has been merciful to us in our spiritual poverty.
The legitimate debate where health care is concerned is about the how, not about the what. While the Union Leader is correct in criticizing those who suggest that it is somehow ungodly to oppose socialized medicine or other proposals from the Left, it's "theology" is essentially antinomian. It is an apologia for sin.
God simply does not make charity optional. He demands it of us. He who suggests otherwise misrepresents Him, and preaches a theology which justifies sin.
Conservatives who claim to be Christians and who make this argument should be ashamed of themselves.
HT: Race for 2012
No, opposing Obamacare is not "Satan's work." There are better and more efficient ways to deal with the health care crisis- and it is a crisis; America ranks 29th in the world in infant mortality. With all the disadvantages of Canada's socialized health care system, stillbirths are 33% less frequent in Canada than in the United States (a point, btw, which demolishes the allegation that our high infant mortality rate is due to a lower rate of stillbirths!). An appalling percentage of the American people lack decent health care because they are inadequately insured.
Healthcare co-ops, state-run programs, and a host of other approaches are far more promising than any sort of nationalized health insurance. I'm not even going to get into all the things that are wrong with the plethora of proposals on the Left where health care reform are concerned. But suffice it for the purposes of this post to point out that the premise of the Union Leader article is exactly wrong.
The poor do have a claim on our charity. God does not make that charity optional. He does not advise it. He commands it, on pain of sin.
Sure sounds like an obligation to me.
The argument that charity ceases to be charity when it is coerced has always struck me as being theologically perverse. It boils down to the notion that disobedience to God is OK if obedience doesn't happen to come spontaneously from the heart. There have actually been antinomians in Christian history who have taught such nonsense. But we are commanded to help our neighbor in need whether we want to our not, on pain of divine displeasure. That help is not optional- and yes, our neighbor does have a right to that help. That right is located in the fact that God in Christ has been merciful to us in our spiritual poverty.
The legitimate debate where health care is concerned is about the how, not about the what. While the Union Leader is correct in criticizing those who suggest that it is somehow ungodly to oppose socialized medicine or other proposals from the Left, it's "theology" is essentially antinomian. It is an apologia for sin.
God simply does not make charity optional. He demands it of us. He who suggests otherwise misrepresents Him, and preaches a theology which justifies sin.
Conservatives who claim to be Christians and who make this argument should be ashamed of themselves.
HT: Race for 2012
Comments
I was wondering how much longer right wing people of God could be in such self-righteousness.