Blog

How to Know Truth and Evaluate Competing Worldviews

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:33:53 -0400

[Chris is the Executive Director of the Richmond Center for Christian Study. This blog submission is based on the first of five sessions of an apologetics course that Chris originally presented at Virginia Commonwealth University March 24 - April 21, 2010. Details and audio recordings can be found here.]

       In this blog entry I want to start by saying a word about why we should care about truth. Then I want to lay out how knowledge works, how to evaluate competing worldviews, and what it looks like to hold on to truth and tolerance at the same time.

Truth – Why Should I Care?!
       Why should I care about truth? There are many reasons. One is because it is often detrimental to be out of touch with reality. An obvious example makes the point. Let’s say you are standing in front of an oncoming bus. If oncoming buses don’t hurt you, then it really doesn’t matter. But if it’s really true that standing in front of an oncoming bus would likely hurt or even kill you, you need to know that.
       Likewise, if sticking a needle in a power outlet can’t hurt you, then it really doesn’t matter. But if it’s really true that sticking a needle in a power outlet could hurt or even kill you (or my one-and-a-half-year-old), you need to know that.
       Take the case of failing to embrace your Creator who determines your eternal destiny. If God isn’t there or doesn’t determine your fate, it really doesn’t matter. But if it’s really true that there is a Creator who determines our destinies, you need to know that.
       Truth matters. It’s not the only thing that matters, but it does matter. And to live out of touch with reality as it actually is could very well be detrimental to our well-being.
       It is also worth noting that truth (the basic nature of reality) is utterly accessible. Though higher education can be a great tool, you don’t have to have an advanced degree to get a basic handle on the nature of reality. It is truly accessible to the average Joe on the street (more on this below).

How to Know What’s Really True – The Reality Principle
       To get at the basic nature of the world we all live in, it is helpful to start with three foundational principles – the Reality Principle, the Bias Principle and the Certainty Principle.
       The Reality Principle simply states that truth is really there and is really knowable. This is important because it means that it’s not all just a matter of opinions and viewpoints (the impression we often get in our world). Now, this does not mean that we can know truth exhaustively, but it does mean that we can know it genuinely. In fact, to deny this principle is self-defeating. To say “truth is not there” is to make a truth claim, which of course undercuts the statement being made. Likewise, to say “truth is not knowable” is to claim to know something to be true, which again undercuts the claim being made. The moment you try and deny this principle, you affirm it. So we can’t say that everything is just a matter of personal perspective, but must maintain that truth is really there and is really knowable.
       Now, some might say “You can say that certain things are true in the realm of science and history and things like that, but when it comes to things pertaining to God, that’s just a matter of faith.” I would respond in two ways. First, the idea that faith and truth (i.e., fact) are somehow divorced and reside in two different realms is an idea that we got from the Enlightenment and is not shared by most of human history. Secondly, the notion that “you can’t know truth about matters pertaining to God” is itself a self-defeating notion. Such a notion makes a truth claim about matters pertaining to God, namely, that you can’t know truth when it comes to matters pertaining to God.
       So it turns out that the Reality Principle is in force, even with things that are often referred to as “matters of faith.” Truth is really there, and it is really knowable.

How to Know What’s Really True – The Bias Principle
       To counter-balance the previous principle, we have to always be mindful of the Bias Principle. The Bias Principle states that how we interpret the facts tends to be influenced by the perspective of the world we already have.
       We all grew up in different ways – some Christian, some Atheist, some Buddhist, some Humanist, etc. – and we tend to be convinced that we see the world the way it really is, and we interpret (or misinterpret) the facts in light of that.
       The Copernican Revolution is a good example of this. Centuries ago, people believed that the sun revolved around the earth – the Geocentric view. (Of course, with the additional facts we have today, we know that this view is not correct.) Now, when we today see the sun rise and set, we are looking at the same data that they were, but their geocentric bias caused them to misinterpret the facts and, in that way, they were out of touch with reality. It was only when they recognized their biases, came to be open to additional facts, and were willing to have their perspectives changed by those facts that they came to be in touch with reality in this way.
       We also must recognize our various biases (in all fields of life) and always be open to the facts as they present themselves to us and be willing to have our perspectives changed by them.

How to Know What’s Really True – The Certainty Principle
       Now, there’s a myth in our culture that says that you can’t know something to be true unless you can prove it with absolute certainty. For example, some might say “You can’t know that God exists or that Jesus really rose from the dead or that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God unless you can prove it absolutely.” This leads us to the Certainty Principle.
       The Certainty Principle says two things. First, it concedes that, yes, you can’t know anything to be true with absolute certainty. In fact, you can’t even be absolutely certain that you are reading this blog entry! Hypothetically, you could be dreaming, and you might find out in two seconds (this has actually happened to me before).
       But the second and more important thing that the Certainty Principle states is that absolute certainty is not required for you to know something to be true. Sufficient certainty is all that is required. This is just how knowledge works.
       For example, as I write this I am sitting in Café Caturra in Midlothian and looking out the window at my car. I parked it there about 30 minutes ago, I remember where I parked it, and I am looking at it. Now, it is remotely possible that, while I wasn’t looking, a drunken tow truck driver tore in here and hauled my car away when I wasn’t looking and it was replaced by a car that looks exactly like mine. That is possible, but as I look out the window I have a sufficient amount of certainty that allows me to rightly say, “I know that’s my car.”
       Likewise, if you are a college student, you could say “Professor, I didn’t study because I wasn’t absolutely certain the test was going to be today. You could have gotten sick and postponed it.” Your professor would rightly say, “I told you the test was going to be today. You knew well enough. You are responsible to take it.”
       The Certainty Principle tells us that there comes a point where you’re sure enough about something that you can rest in the knowledge that it is true and thus become responsible to act upon it. So we can’t wait until absolute proof is presented before we will believe something to be true, but must be willing to consider the facts and go where they reasonably seem to lead.

How to Test a Worldview
       Now that we see a bit about how knowledge works and how we come to know things, let’s take a look at how to actually go about evaluating the competing worldviews in our culture.
       What is a worldview? A worldview is simply a comprehensive view of reality. And there are many worldviews out there – Humanism, Buddhism, Modernism, Christianity, etc.
       How are we to think about this competition of worldviews? There is a drive in our culture today to affirm everybody in whatever he or she believes. That raises an important question. Why can’t we all just be right? Why do we have to say “This is true and that is false; this is right and that is wrong”?
       There are two reasons. First, very often different worldviews contradict each other at the core. So it is not possible that they could both be true. For example, take Atheism and Theism. Theism says, “God exists,” and without this, Theism falls apart. Atheism says, “God does not exist,” and without this, Atheism falls apart. So if it’s really true that God exists, Atheism cannot be true. On the other hand, if it’s really true that God does not exist, Theism cannot be true. Of course, God either exists or he doesn’t. So one of these worldviews has to fail.
       The second reason we can’t all be right is because there is, of course, only one reality and we all live in it. And our worldviews either fit or fail to fit the nature of the world we live in. Different worldviews paint fundamentally different pictures of reality. But since there is only one reality, only one worldview can match reality as it actually is and thus be true. All other worldviews would be painting pictures different from reality and thus would be essentially false.
       For the sake of illustration, let’s assume that Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa represents reality. Now consider Grant Wood’s American Gothic. There is much that it has in common with the Mona Lisa (faces, backgrounds, etc.), but it is essentially a different picture. Take Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam. Again, there is much that it has in common with the Mona Lisa (eyes, hair, etc.), but it is not the Mona Lisa. Now let’s consider a replica of the Mona Lisa. Of course, it represents the Mona Lisa (i.e., reality) as it actually is. In the same way, since there is only one reality, only one worldview could paint a picture of reality as it actually is.
       This leads to the fundamental question we have to ask when evaluating a worldview, “Is this worldview consistent with reality or not?”
       It seems to me that there are at least three tests by which we can determine whether a worldview is consistent with reality. First is the Test of Logical Consistency, which asks “Is this worldview consistent with itself?” If this worldview represents reality, in order to be consistent with reality it has to be consistent with itself. Second is the Test of Historical Consistency, which asks “Is this worldview consistent with history?” History tells us what the world has been like up to this point. So if a worldview is going to fit reality, it will have to be consistent with history. Third is the Test of Experiential Consistency, which asks “Is this worldview consistent with life as it presents itself to us?” If a worldview is going to fit reality, it is going to have to fit the data that life lays out before us.
       Though I do not want to oversimplify the various worldviews in our culture (there is always more to learn), I do want to show that worldviews tend to have core, decisive elements that allow the average Joe on the street to evaluate them in light of the tests just mentioned.

How to Test a Worldview – Postmodernism
       Let’s take a few examples. First, Postmodernism. Postmodernism is perhaps the most pervasive, fundamental worldview in our culture today. The essence of Postmodernism is the notion that everybody decides for himself what is true and what is right. You hear Postmodernism when you hear people say things like “That’s true for you, but not for me,” or “You have your truth; I have mine,” or “That’s just your personal belief.”
       The core truth claim of Postmodernism is that there is no overarching truth that applies to everybody. And this core truth claim, by the way, is the overarching truth that applies to everybody! Of course, in claiming that there is no overarching truth that applies to everybody, it is making an overarching truth claim that applies to everybody. This, of course, is a contradiction, causing Postmodernism to fail the Test of Logical Consistency. Thus, Postmodernism cannot fit reality as it actually is.
       I find this utterly fascinating! The worldview that governs so much of our culture at a fundamental level could not possibly be true. And you do not have to go very deep to see it.

How to Test a Worldview – Naturalism
       Another example is Naturalism. At its core, Naturalism says that matter and energy are all there is (thus, it is essentially Atheistic). You hear this worldview when you hear people say things like “Everything has to have a ‘scientific’ explanation,” which is often code for “Naturalistic explanation.” So everything in life has to be explained in terms of the properties of matter and energy alone.
       One of the problems with Naturalism is that it just doesn’t fit our collective experience of life. Life presents itself to us as including things like relationships, commitment, love, hate, etc. But Naturalism does not have room for these things. Atoms cannot love; energy cannot hate. Naturalism paints a picture of reality that clashes with the world as we know it. So Naturalism fails the Test of Experiential Consistency and thus cannot fit reality.
       It should be noted that the Naturalist has a high price to pay for the worldview he embraces. The Naturalist must say that the things that we all value in life – love, relationships, etc. – are mere illusions. And a consistent Naturalist will say this.
       But the Naturalist has a deeper problem. How can mere matter and energy have an illusion? Of course, it can’t. At this point, we realize that Naturalism fails the Test of Logical Consistency as well, requiring illusions which Naturalism cannot allow.

How to Test a Worldview – Islam
       What about Islam? Islam depends on the notion that the Bible has been fundamentally corrupted. Islam has to claim this because, while it affirms that the Bible as originally written is the Word of God, there are core contradictions between the Bible as we have it today and the teachings of Islam.
       For example, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, and without this teaching Christianity falls apart. But Islam teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, and without this teaching Islam falls apart. Again, the Bible teaches that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, and without this teaching Christianity falls apart. But Islam teaches that Jesus did not die on the cross and rise from the dead, and without this teaching Islam falls apart. So there are clear contradictions between the core teachings of the Bible as we have it today and the core teachings of Islam. And the only way Islam can maintain that the Bible is the Word of God and avoid these kinds of contradictions is by claiming that the Bible as originally written came to be fundamentally corrupted at some point in time.
       So then, the question becomes “When was the Bible corrupted?” One possibility is before the Koran was written in the seventh century. The problem with this possibility is that the Koran itself refers to the Bible as a reliable document at the time in which the Koran was written.
       For example, Koran 5:47 says “Let the People of the Gospel [i.e., Christians] judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what God hath revealed, they are no better than those who rebel.” This is a call issued by the Koran in the seventh century for Christians to listen to what God had revealed in the New Testament. This call only makes sense if the New Testament had been faithfully preserved through the seventh century, because only then could they “judge by the light of what God hath revealed.”
       Likewise, Koran 5:68 says “Say: ‘O People of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians]! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law [i.e., the Old Testament], the Gospel [i.e., the New Testament], and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.’” Again, this assumes that the Bible is reliable at the time of the writing of the Koran because you can’t “stand fast” by what has essentially been lost through corruption.
       So, the Koran itself assumes that the Bible had been faithfully preserved, at least through the seventh century when the Koran was written. Of course, for Islam to suggest that the Bible had become fundamentally corrupted before the seventh century would lead to a contradiction, causing Islam to fail the Test of Logical Consistency.
       Of course, the other possibility is that the Bible came to be corrupted at some point after the seventh century. The problem with this is that we have a massive amount of New Testament manuscripts dating as far back as the second century and Old Testament manuscripts dating back even earlier that are virtually identical with our Bibles today. This rules out the possibility of the kind of Biblical corruption that Islam requires after the second century. And of course, for Islam to suggest that the Bible had become fundamentally corrupted after the second century would simply clash with history, causing Islam to fail the Test of Historical Consistency.
       So where does that leave us? The Koran does not allow for a corrupted Bible before the seventh century. History itself shows that the Bible could not have been corrupted after the second century. So there is no time left in which the Bible could have been corrupted. And since Islam depends on the notion that the Bible has been fundamentally corrupted, we see that Islam as a worldview cannot fit reality.

What About Tolerance?!
       With all this talk about different worldviews failing to fit reality, you might wonder what happened to tolerance. It sure doesn’t sound tolerant, does it? But what is tolerance?
       Our modern notion of tolerance is that you can’t say that someone else’s beliefs are wrong. If you do, you are being intolerant. But that is not what tolerance has always meant. The historic meaning of tolerance is that you should be willing to live peacefully and respectfully with those you believe, and even say, are wrong.
       If you think about it, our modern “redefined” understanding of tolerance doesn’t even make sense. If you can’t say something is wrong or false, there is nothing left to tolerate.
       But even more than this, our modern understanding of tolerance undercuts itself. It does the very thing that it claims ought not to be done. It says, essentially, that it is wrong for you to say that someone else is wrong. This, of course, fails the Test of Logical Consistency, and thus cannot be an approach that fits reality.
       The historic meaning of tolerance is actually a reflection of the teaching of Jesus himself, and this is how we ought to approach others and the worldviews they hold.

The Call of Jesus
       This leads us, finally, to the call of Jesus. John 1:17 states, “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” One of the implications of this verse is simply that grace and truth must be held together when evaluating different worldviews, and when relating to the people that hold them.
       If we hold onto truth without grace, we beat people up with our words and we fail to follow the Jesus who was called “the friend of sinners” and who humbled himself even to the point of death on a cross. If we hold onto grace without truth, we find ourselves no longer in touch with reality, but rather blinded by a pretend world that doesn’t match the real world as it actually is.
       The Apostle Peter shows the need for both when he says in 1 Peter 3:15, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have [referring to truth]. But do this with gentleness and respect [referring to grace].” May it be so with each of us.

blog guidelines

New Matching Donation Opportunity!

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:29:08 -0400

Support Situation - As we approach the end of our first official year, the support base of the Richmond Study Center is now up to 80% of where it needs to be to erase our monthly deficit and become financially stable for the long haul.  We need one final push to get to this financially stable ground.

Matching Donation Opportunity - To help in this effort, two donors have offered to match new recurring donations one-to-one! So a commitment of $10 per month would become $20 per month, or a commitment of $100 per month would become $200 per month, etc.
       This is a great opportunity for new donors, or for current donors who would be willing to increase their monthly contributions (the increase would be matched)! Click here to see how to help in this way...

Special One-time Need - Since we have not quite finished building our support base (and thus continue to run a deficit), we are in need of around $10,000 in one-time gifts to make up the difference until that monthly support base is fully in place.
       We would appreciate your considering how you might help in this way with a one-time gift of $100, $500, $1000 or some other amount. Click here to see how to help in this way...

Thank you so much for your consideration, prayers and partnership!

Suffering and the Biblical Story, posted by Dr. Robert Peterson of Covenant Theological Seminary

Mon, 31 May 2010 08:49:18 -0400

[Dr. Peterson is professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary. This blog submission, also published at Christianity.com, is related to the weekend mini-course that Dr. Peterson presented through the Richmond Study Center on suffering and the resurrection May 23-25, 2010, and is taken from his book Suffering and the Goodness of God, which Dr. Peterson co-edited with Dr. Chris Morgan, professor of theology and associate dean of the School of Christian Ministries at California Baptist University.]

We are all acquainted with suffering. For us to get a handle on suffering we must view it from Scripture’s perspective and not merely from our own. That means that we must consider it in light of the biblical story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation.

CREATION AND SUFFERING

       Understanding Genesis’s teaching about God’s creation sheds light on our understanding of suffering in two important and related ways. First, we discover that suffering is not something created or authored by God. Rather, God created a good universe and good human beings. Second, we learn that there was a time when there was no suffering. Suffering is not original; it has not always existed.

Suffering is not created by God.
       Genesis 1-2 shows the Creator to be transcendent, sovereign, personal, immanent, and good. God’s goodness is displayed in his turning the chaos into something good—the heavens and the earth. His goodness is even more clearly reflected in the goodness of his creation, evidenced by the steady refrain, “And God saw that it was good” (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), a goodness accentuated on the sixth day: “Behold, it was very good” (1:31). God’s generous provisions of light, land, vegetation, and animals are blessings given for man’s benefit, as are the abilities to know God, work, marry, and procreate. God blesses man with the Sabbath, places him in the delightful garden of Eden, gives him a helper, and establishes only one prohibition, given not to squelch man but to promote his welfare.
       The conclusion is clear: God is good and did not create suffering or evil. He created a good world for the good of his creatures. Humans too were created good and blessed beyond measure, being made in God’s image, with an unhindered relationship with God, and with freedom. As a result, casting blame for suffering on the good and generous God is unbiblical and unfounded.

Suffering has not always existed.
       A related but distinct principle we learn from the biblical account of creation is that suffering has not always existed. From a theological standpoint, God’s creation of the universe out of nothing shows that he alone is independent, absolute, and eternal. Everything else has been created. Further, the inherent goodness of creation leaves no room for a fundamental dualism between spirit and matter. Contrary to some philosophical and religious traditions, the Bible teaches that matter is a part of God’s creation and is good.
       From a historical standpoint, the story of creation unmistakably recounts that there was a time when there was no suffering. Suffering is not original. Indeed, the very fact that our world now includes suffering testifies that it is not now the way it was, and therefore, as Cornelius Plantinga helpfully states, “it is not the way it is supposed to be.”¹

THE FALL AND SUFFERING

       Suffering and sin were not a part of God’s original good creation. But they are surely a big part of human life today. To understand why things are not the way they’re supposed to be we must consider the fall.
       The biblical account of the Fall helps us understand suffering in three important ways. First, we see that suffering is a consequence of sin. Second, we learn that suffering is not natural to God’s good creation but is an intruder. Third, we realize that suffering contains an element of mystery.

Suffering is a consequence of the Fall.
       God is the author of neither sin nor suffering. He creates a good world and good human beings who reflect his goodness. Henri Blocher wisely warns, “We cannot be too radical here. The perfect goodness of God’s creation rules out the tiniest root, seed, or germ of evil.”² Suffering is not a part of God’s creation, but rather a byproduct of sin, as Carson states so clearly:

Between the beginning and the end of the Bible, there is evil and there is suffering. But the point to be observed is that from the perspective of the Bible’s large-scale story line, the two are profoundly related: evil is the primal cause of suffering, rebellion is the root of pain, sin is the source of death.³

       Genesis 3 makes it clear that as sin enters through Adam so do its consequences—estrangement from God, shame, alienation from others, suffering, banishment, and death. Paul in Romans 5:12-21 confirms this: sin entered the world through one man’s sin, and condemnation and death through sin.
       On a cosmic scale, therefore, all suffering is an effect of the Fall.⁴ Indeed, because we live in this fallen world, we will suffer and “reap sin’s consequences in the home, the workplace, and the cemetery.”⁵

Suffering is an intruder.
       As a consequence of sin, suffering is also an intruder into God’s good creation. Michael Williams observes: “By beginning with the story of creation rather than the Fall, Scripture proclaims categorically that sin is an intruder. It is not the product of God’s creativity. It does not belong.”⁶ Sin is not the only intruder, but its evil children—suffering and death—have intruded as well.
       We intuitively know this but often do not consider its significance. When we encounter suffering, something inside us often cries out: “This is wrong! The world should not be like this! Children should not be abused, senior adults should not get Alzheimer’s, missionaries should not be tortured!” Or on a more personal level, we might protest: “Why me? What did I do to deserve this?” Such instincts are valid because they recognize that this world is not the way it is supposed to be. We know this when we consider sin; we know to hate rape, murder, bigotry, and child abuse. We oppose sin and refuse to be at ease with it. In the same way, we are not to be comfortable with the reality of suffering (although we are to be at peace with God in the midst of it) and should do our best to alleviate it.⁷ Like sin, suffering is an intruder and cannot be welcomed as natural.⁸ The horror of suffering’s intrusion points to the horror of sin, its fundamental source.

Suffering is mysterious.
       Suffering is not only a consequence of sin and an intruder, but it is also mysterious. Theologians speak of “the riddle of sin.” For example, Anthony Hoekema asserts:

The fact that we can discern these stages in the temptation and fall of our first parents, however, does not mean that we have in the Genesis narrative an explanation for the entrance of sin into the human world. What we have here is the biblical narrative of the origin of sin, but not an explanation for that origin. One of the most important things we must remember about sin… is that it is inexplicable. The origin of evil is… one of the greatest riddles of life.⁹

The riddle centers on the question: why would Adam and Eve sin? Augustine helpfully taught that Adam was able not to sin and able to sin, so that there was an inherent possibility to sin in him. We agree, but as Hoekema advises: “But how this possibility became actuality is a mystery that we shall never be able to fathom. We shall never know how doubt first arose in Eve’s mind. We shall never understand how a person who had been created in a state of rectitude, in a state of sinlessness, could begin to sin.”¹⁰
The difficulty remains: “how could a sinless will begin to will sinfully?”¹¹ Adam and Eve were created good and did not initially have a corrupt heart to lead them astray. They had a close relationship with the Lord, enjoyed intimacy with each other, and retained authority over creation. It would seem that they had everything in Eden they could possibly want; they lived, after all, in paradise! Collins notes:

In 3:6, as [the woman] regards the tree and sees that it is “good for food, a delight to the eyes, and desirable for giving insight,” the irony of the parallel with 2:9 (there was already “every tree desirable to the sight and good for food” in the garden) should not escape us. She already had everything she could possibly want, and she even had the resources to get everything she thought the tree had to offer.¹²

       The first couple had everything they could ever want, and yet history records that, in unfaithfulness to God and disobedience to his one prohibition, they threw it all away for a piece of fruit! How absurd! As Augustine noted, trying to determine reasons for such foolishness is like trying to see darkness or hear silence. Or as Cornelius Plantinga describes, sin is like sawing off a branch that supports us—it cuts us off from our only help.¹³ We cannot make sense out of such folly or find clear-cut explanations for the irrationality of this Original Sin.¹⁴
       If the origin of evil is one of the greatest mysteries of life, then it should come as no surprise that the existence of its byproduct—suffering—likewise remains a mystery. Paul’s words “now I know in part” (1 Cor. 13:9, 12) show that for at least some matters even apostolic revelation is partial; and suffering is one of those matters. God has revealed much about suffering (hence this blog post and the book on which it is based!), but our knowledge is limited and some mystery concerning suffering will remain.¹⁵
       While its source, nature, extent, and effects are themselves enigmatic enough, the primary mystery related to suffering concerns how and why a sovereign and good God chooses to decree/permit suffering in general, as well as to distribute it so seemingly inequitably. We know that sin, suffering, and death are results of the Fall, but if God is sovereign, why would he do it this way? And why do some seem to live in relative ease while others are consistently pounded with heavy blows? And why does this particular circumstance happen to this person—or worse, to me or my family? At its core, this aspect of the mystery of suffering is really the mystery of providence: Why does God run his universe the way he does?¹⁶
       Scripture’s account of the Fall tells us that sin and its corollaries suffering and death are not created by God; they do not belong. Yet through the rebellion of Adam, they have intruded. The world is not the way it was, but thankfully, as Genesis 3:15 hints and the rest of the Bible makes increasingly clear, the world will not always be this way. Because the Son of God became one of us and died and arose to set things right, this ugly curse will be removed from the earth and from humanity (Rev. 22:3). Because “God was pleased . . . thru him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:19-20) there will be a new heaven and new earth, the home of the Trinity and God’s people for all eternity. But in this interval between God’s initial good creation and final recreation, sin, suffering, and death exist. And somehow the good, sovereign God guides history in such a way that he plans that evil would occur and even utilizes it to bring about his intended purposes for creation. He plans it, guides it, restrains it, and uses it.¹⁷ In doing so, he will glorify himself and benefit his creatures. So suffering may be mysterious, but it is not utterly pointless. A biblical view of the providence of God “affirms that all things ultimately have purpose, even evil acts which appear to be completely senseless.”¹⁸

blog guidelines

¹ Cornelius Plantinga , Jr., Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 2.
² Henri Blocher, Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle. New Studies in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 56.
³ Carson, How Long, O Lord?, 42.
⁴ This is not to suggest that particular instances of suffering can be or should be traced back to particular sins. In some cases, that is possible, but in other instances it is unfounded. The point is that all suffering results from Adam’s sin.
⁵ Pyne, Humanity and Sin, 160.
⁶ Michael D. Williams, Far as the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2005), 64.
⁷ For more on this theme, see William Edgar’s essay on oppression on pages XYZ of this volume.
⁸ It is important to coordinate the emphasis on the intrusion of suffering with a robust view of God’s sovereignty. The Fall does not fall outside God’s design for history.
⁹ Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 130-31.
¹⁰ Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 131.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² Collins, Genesis 1-4, 172.
¹³ Plantinga , Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, 123.
¹⁴ Not everything about sin is mysterious, however, and sometimes theologians too quickly appeal to mystery. For a helpful response to such approaches, see Blocher, Original Sin, 107-9.
¹⁵ Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority (Waco: Word, 1976-83; reprint, Wheaton: Crossway, 1999), 6:302.
¹⁶ After Job raises this and other questions to God, God turns the tables and poses the question back to Job (see Job 38:1-41:34), asking essentially: Do you know enough to run the world? Do you really believe you have some insights to offer me on how to guide history? Job learned that God’s providence is good, sovereign, wise, and mysterious.
¹⁷ See Erickson, Christian Theology, 387-432.
¹⁸ Pyne, Humanity and Sin, 203.

Healthcare Reform and the Bible - Part 3 of 3 (The Role of Government)

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:07:27 -0400

[Dr. Wade is a board member of the Richmond Center for Christian Study and a retired family physician. Her contribution to our blog was also published at Christianity.com.]

The first article on this topic (in a three-article series) declared that the Bible definitely has answers to the healthcare crisis in America. The answers aren't simple, nor will they make everyone happy, but they're certainly clear. A robust biblical worldview bears on every part of life and culture. So, naturally, I believe the Bible is where we must begin if we are to adequately address any problem — including problems of this magnitude.

So far we have seen that the Bible speaks to our individual duty to love and help the needy, as well as calling health providers and businesses to examine their financial and ethical responses to the problem.

But most of us really struggle to care well, even for those immediately around us. Most businesses do not embrace voluntary restriction of profit. And discriminatory practices continue. Meanwhile increasing numbers of people are unable to keep up with rising healthcare costs, while at the same time more people are needing care, making access to healthcare even more difficult.

So we are left with the question "Does God mean us to leave the situation as it is while we continue trying to make small dents in the situation, or is there a biblical basis for the federal, state or local government to take a role in healthcare reform?"

This is the area of most profound disagreement among Christians.

Why is there such disagreement?

There are numerous reasons. In the eyes of one group of Christians, a federal government role in healthcare reform means it is moving into areas from which it was specifically excluded by the Constitution. Since many Christians are firmly convinced of the reliable wisdom of the founding fathers in desiring to keep federal government small in order to allow individuals to follow God in their own way, this step is considered disastrous. They also do not see healthcare as being a biblically assigned function of the government, and point to the fact that government involvement often ends up stamping out the Christian message of hope for the needy it serves. This is not compatible with the mercy ministries of the New Testament.

Some Christians want to keep the federal government out of healthcare on pragmatic grounds. Big government involvement always ends up costing society far more than estimated, thereby reducing the money individuals retain to contribute locally to more efficient charities. At the same time, because of the nationwide stretch and huge numbers involved, red tape increases while response times are slowed and solutions become one-size-fits-all. The system of free money handouts often utilized by the federal government has the effect of encouraging the dependency of the recipients and diminishing the responsibility and self-worth that God has associated with working.

On the other hand, some Christians, totally fed up with the decreasing ability of individuals and group charity efforts to keep up with increasing healthcare needs, and frustrated by the ongoing lack of voluntary change in society, perceive the Federal government as being the only entity big enough to move us, in spite of ourselves, to do the right thing. They are deeply concerned that all of those who need healthcare receive it, in line with Scriptural teachings about providing mercy and justice for the needy.

In light of our disagreements, I think we should consider two things before examining the role of government any further.

In the first place, I would caution us to be careful not to elevate any of man's wisdom to a position over God's — whether it belongs to the man-made document of the Constitution, or man's view of the appropriate way to dispense mercy and justice. It is a constant challenge to discern what parts of our worldview are actually rooted in God's Word, and what parts we have imbibed from our upbringing or teaching.

Secondly we should realize that there is no sphere of our lives which is free from government. (Government is defined here as either "restraint, control" or "a position of authority.")

Government is present from the level of governing of one's own heart, to the governing of our families, to government within the church body and local civic organizations, up through county, state and federal government levels.

In our fallen state, we must have government of some sort in all of our communal activities or we fall into chaos. So government is necessary in society and, done well, it is one of God's common grace gifts.

The current healthcare reform debate in the U.S., however, is specifically concerned with our federal government, an elected secular body of a few citizens who have been given "by the people" the authority to make laws and to ensure their establishment, which will be for the good — the general welfare — of the citizens of our nation.

We are concerned with what can be drawn from Scripture to answer this question "Has the federal government been given a legitimate interest in ensuring that all citizens have reasonable access to health care?"

It is worth noting that a negative answer to these questions would not alter the fact that the federal government already insures [is the Single Payor for] more than 50% of United States citizens — Veterans, as well as those on Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP to name the largest groups. The U.S. federal government is already deeply entrenched in healthcare.

Turning to the Bible now, we see several types of societies represented in the Old and New Testaments, illustrating different governing situations.

All of them are under God's sovereign rule, but the Garden of Eden, the nation of Israel (except during the Babylonian exile), and much of the book of Revelation represent theocracies — societies in which God rules directly because He is present. His laws are to be obeyed and there is no room for idolatry and sin, on pain of death.

We are not in such a theocracy, but because God gives us such a clear picture of Israel and shows us His requirements for, and the commendations and condemnations of, His appointed authorities, we can really see the role of godly rulers in relation to the needy.

Here are some examples:

1) Judges were held accountable for adjudicating fairly — no injustice, partiality or bribery (2 Chr 19:7)

2) Lawmakers were warned about making laws that deprived the poor, oppressed, fatherless, or widows of their rights and justice (Is. 10:1-2)

3) Kings were directed to promote justice, and adjudicate the poor fairly, in order to keep the country and the throne stable (Pr. 29:4,14)

4) King Josiah was commended by God who said of him, "'He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?' declares the Lord." (Jer 22:16)

It seems that God called on kings, lawmakers and judges in Israel to ensure that the poor across the nation received justice and care, rather than leaving that care solely as a function of the individual Israelites. This probably implied making sure that appropriate laws were carried out.

We can draw much insight into leadership roles from the monarchy of Israel, though we do need to remember that kingship in Israel was a type [a forward look] of the Christ, the eternal ruler who was to rule over all things. Much of what the kings of Israel were called to do represents what Christ will in fact fulfill when His kingdom is finally and fully established.

However, Psalm 82 is a psalm which some commentators feel may well be addressed to all kings and authorities outside, as well as inside, Israel. It portrays a scene in which God is calling kings and men in authority to account;

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless.
Maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
Rescue the weak and needy…"

This psalm directly places responsibility for the well-being of the needy onto the leaders.

The other type of society in Scripture is represented by the time of the individuals called by God prior to the establishment of Israel, the community of Israelites in exile, and the early Church. It is also the kind of society present in the United States today. In these societies God deals individually with His people, within the context of the larger secular society. In the parts of Scripture that deal with these societies, God elaborates only in a couple of places on the role of secular government.

In Jeremiah 29:7 the prophet tells those going into exile to "seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."

This would seem to validate our working for the good of the larger secular community, rather than just for the good of fellow believers, and could well involve working through authority structures. There is also no doubt that peace and prosperity in a community depend on citizens having their most important needs met.

Romans 13 is the most lengthy discussion of actual secular government on the level of the federal government, and Paul was talking about a government that was a lot more hostile to Christian beliefs and values than ours. After establishing that all authorities are established by God, and specifically mentioning the role of the authority as God's servant to bring punishment on wrong doers, Paul goes on to talk about the authorities being God's servant to do us good, and to commend those who do right. Exactly what it means to ‘do us good' and ‘commend those who do right' is not exactly clear, but it could fit with the call in Psalm 82 to authorities to protect the needy.

As a result, I do see some basis for government in a society like ours to take a role in ensuring that the healthcare needs of its citizens are met if they are not being adequately covered by private means.

This might involve legislation to remove discriminatory fee structuring, restraint of excessive profit making in the healthcare field, setting up incentives for preventive health practice, and removal of the tax free status of some health insurance. I do not see a role for a public option, however.

Personally, I could also agree to mandatory health insurance, based on an income sliding scale, that would allow coverage of doctor visits, hospital treatments, place a reasonable cap on yearly medical payments, and cover pre-existing conditions. I see this as an application of the principle of bearing one another's burdens and placing the needs of others before my own.

I do want to add several limitations immediately.

Such government involvement must be consistent with the protection of life at all stages, and the protection of the conscience-rights of healthcare providers. I believe that to be essential in order to remain consistent with God's placement of intrinsic value on each human being.

Such help is most effective and ministry to the whole person is most possible when help is given at the closest level to those needing it. So, it would seem to make the most sense to push for reform at the county and state levels, rather than at the federal level.

I do not support the health reform package currently being rushed through Congress and the Senate, but I believe that Scripture does contain the basis for some form of involvement by our government authorities in the care of the needy in this country at this time.

We have now looked at how Scripture calls individuals, businesses and government to carefully examine their role in healthcare, and we need to pray that God will give us the courage to make needed changes.

blog guidelines

Here is a two-minute video clip of the healthcare reform event from which this blog entry was adapted...

view entire video

Healthcare Reform and the Bible - Part 2 of 3 (Healthcare Costs)

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:27:10 -0500

[Dr. Wade is a board member of the Richmond Center for Christian Study and a retired family physician. Her contribution to our blog was also published at Christianity.com.]

The first article on this topic (in a three-article series) declared that the Bible definitely has answers to the healthcare crisis in America. The answers aren't simple, nor will they make everyone happy, but they're certainly clear. A robust biblical worldview bears on every part of life and culture. So, naturally, I believe the Bible is where we must begin if we are to adequately address any problem — including problems of this magnitude.

As was seen in part one of this series, the Bible very clearly outlines specific instructions on justice, mercy and caring for the needy. But another big problem in American health care that the Bible addresses is that of finances. The costs of personal health insurance coverage as well as the expenses associated with high-quality medical care itself are, to say the least, astounding. Such costs increasingly limit the access of patients to useful healthcare in this country.

Probably each of us knows a family struggling to afford the costs of healthcare. We have heard stories about those who have lost everything in bankruptcy due to overwhelming medical bills. While this article may not comprehensively address every tragic situation, the Bible does address the core issues of profits and business practices of the health insurance and medical care industries.

Thinking about money always puts American Christians in a dilemma because the free market system presents money as our ultimate goal. We are rewarded with comfort and respect if we have enough of it and there are certainly many passages even in Scripture praising hard work and the comfort of possessions as work's reward.

Yet as Christians directed by Christ's example of sacrifice, we understand that everything we possess is God's, not our own, even if we earned it by the sweat of our brow. We know that those goods are of no value in our real home and that we will not be able to take even a single dollar bill into heaven with us.

On earth we are to be stewards of those goods, to use them to bless others, and be willing to lose them if that serves God. How easily, though, does the love of money nestle into our hearts right along with the wise and reasonable desires for family stability, old age preparedness, and health care provisions. We understand the problem, and yet we still let it happen. At this time and place in American history, the need to control healthcare costs is a call to rigorous self-examination — individually and corporately — regarding our attitude towards money.

The first area that we must examine when looking at what an individual can do to affect healthcare costs is that of whether we take responsibility for self-control in the area of food and exercise. Increasingly we are becoming aware of the disastrous effects on the collective health of this nation from rampant overeating and under exercising. One in three adults are already obese, and even our children, who have generally been thin because of their constant growth, higher metabolic rate, and continuous activity, are now developing obesity in alarming numbers. This portends a huge wave of diabetic related diseases in the near future, with massively increasing costs to our already overloaded healthcare system.

Yet the Bible contains numerous admonitions to be self-controlled, not to let any sin have dominion over us, not to be gluttonous, and to care for the body because it is God's temple. We know what we have to do. It doesn't cost anything to stop eating oversized portions and to reduce the amount of food we eat, or even to choose healthier foods (although I acknowledge that buying the really healthy food can be more expensive). Most of us can choose to exercise more. Here, at last, is a way to reduce the costs of healthcare that is completely within our ability. Are we doing it? Are we obeying God by exercising self-control in this? We must do it; both for our brothers and sisters and for ourselves.

On the other hand, as patients, we often want the best treatments and the most recently discovered tests and drugs, despite their lack of proven effectiveness and high costs. After all, America is the land of innovation and discovery and we should benefit from it. Any outside limitation of our choices tends to be seen as unwarranted intrusion on our individual rights.

In the understanding, however, that we gave up our "rights" to God when we committed ourselves completely to Him, and the knowledge that the United States doesn't have unlimited resources, we should look to Christ's example of giving up all of His "rights" and choices in heaven for our sakes. We need to carefully consider what the commandments to bear one another's burdens and to think of each other more highly than ourselves might require of us in the health care field.

We certainly know that those commands apply to the way we function in our families and our churches, but they may also operate in our relationships with those we are called on to love. Is it possible that, as Christians operating within the larger community, we may need to voluntarily accept less than the optimal testing and treatment for ourselves in order to bring down the costs for others?

Those of us who are members of the healthcare industry need to consider whether we have succumbed to our culture's view of income. It doesn't matter if we are healthcare providers, insurance agents, hospital administrators, drug company representatives, or scientists developing new drugs and diagnostic tools, we are all susceptible to the "I deserve it" mentality.

Such a view says that, because of our long and difficult studies, on-call schedules, long hours and high responsibility, we deserve the highest pay that the market will bear. Thinking this way is the "normal" American mindset, but is it possible that the love of money is inflating our perceived income requirements and contributing to the spiraling healthcare costs?

For businessmen in the healthcare field there is a special challenge. A free market economy has the view that a business is a business is a business, and therefore, since profit is what a business is about, the higher profit the better. Here are two questions that need to be answered in the light of Scripture:

(1) Is health care really an industry like other industries?
(2) Is unlimited profit a biblical viewpoint?

The answer to the first question is "No." Industries usually make profits for their investors by increasing the consumption of their product, continually raising the prices as high as the market will bear and whittling down the workforce costs to the minimum. It is easy to see how treating healthcare as an industry not only contributes to the spiraling costs related to the continual research, development and introduction of expensive new equipment and drugs into the medical field (often minimally different from other cheaper ones on the market), but also to dehumanizing the "consumer" (the sick person who is in no position to assess his choices), and minimizing the healthcare provider availability for the compassionate care that illness requires.

Jesus continually linked healing the sick to preaching the good news of the kingdom and demonstrated God's love by spending time with the needy while healing the body and ministering to the soul. I would suggest that Scripture shows healthcare should be a compassionate non-profit ministry, not an industry. Obviously, changing that viewpoint has lots of ramifications for the way healthcare is reformed.

Dealing with the second question, it can be seen that while Scripture definitely supports business and profit, it also lays out the model that businessmen are not to pursue unlimited profit to the detriment of the needy.

a) God's law for Israel in Leviticus 19:9-10 requires the businessman (field owner) not to collect all of the possible profit from his field specifically so that food is made available for the poor to collect.

b) Even more startling was God's requirement that in every 50th year (the Jubilee year), all land that had been bought from another Israelite in the last 50 years had to revert to the family of the original owner. This did two things. It restored lost capital back to families who had become poor, giving them a fresh start. It also kept rich businessmen from building huge empires, which could cause oppression of the poor or the middle class.

So I would suggest that there is a reasonable biblical base for suggesting that companies — especially those involved in the health care field — should consider curbing excessive profits in order to benefit those who need care.

Lastly, I would point out that God continually calls us to fair business practices by emphasizing the use of honest scales (Lev 19:36, Deut. 25:15) and not preying on the poor or making unjust gain (Ezek. 22:12, Is. 10:2, and Am. 5:11).

Currently, our health care practices are such that people who do not have insurance are often charged far more (sometimes by thousands of dollars) for exactly the same procedure that is provided at a lesser price to those who are covered by insurance (the insurance company's negotiated rate). While I understand the worldly explanation of large number negotiations bringing down prices, the practice looks very much like those condemned by God, in that the people most adversely affected by the different prices are the poor. Healthcare reform needs to address fair pricing arrangements.

We have now looked at how Scripture calls individuals, healthcare providers and businesses to carefully examine their role in healthcare costs, and we need to pray that God will give us the courage to make needed changes.

But is there more to be done? The next article will consider whether Scripture informs us about whether government has a role in the health care field, and if so, what that might look like.

blog guidelines

Here is a two-minute video clip of the healthcare reform event from which this blog entry was adapted...

view entire video

Healthcare Reform and the Bible - Part 1 of 3

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:07:35 -0500

[Dr. Wade is a board member of the Richmond Center for Christian Study and a retired family physician. Her contribution to our blog was also published at Christianity.com.]

Do you know a family struggling to afford the costs of healthcare, or perhaps have a relative who has been rejected from coverage because of a pre-existing condition? Perhaps you have heard stories about people who have lost everything in bankruptcy due to overwhelming healthcare bills.

How can we resolve the healthcare crisis in a way that is fair? There are many different ideas floating around out there, but does the Bible have anything to say, directly or indirectly, about how healthcare should be handled? If so, how does a biblical worldview bear on the current debate about healthcare reform? Is there anything you can personally do to bring resolution to this vital issue?

As a physician, I believe that the most important question to be asked about healthcare reform is, "What does God have to say about justice and mercy, and the governmental role in the healthcare field?" To me, the real debate about healthcare reform is more concerned with these issues than it is with specific medical knowledge or techniques. God, being the Creator of humankind, knows people and their needs far more clearly than we do. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 1:25 tells us "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom…" So, to the Scriptures we turn in search of His wisdom.

What Should We Think about Healthcare Reform?
First, beginning in Genesis, we discover God's answer to the basic question "What does it mean to be healthy?" In other words, what is the goal of our reform? The first chapters of the Bible illustrate real health in action. The word "health" is not actually mentioned, but the situation is clearly one of physical, emotional, mental and spiritual health. Adam had full and open communication with God, full and open communication with other humans (Eve), a healthy body, meaningful work, and a stimulating environment. This well-rounded view of health should influence the way we seek reforms in our system. Even as we discuss ways to care for physical health, we ought to include in our thinking the areas of mental, emotional, and spiritual health as well.

Secondly, Genesis also reveals that as humans we are given the dignity of being made in God's image. We are not valuable because of movie-star looks, football-linebacker size, amazing works of charity, or a Nobel-prize intellect. Human beings are valuable simply and only because God places value on each of us. Such intrinsic value, thus, invalidates any attempt to measure up the size, stage of development and intellectual awareness of other humans to see if they fit our idea of "personhood" and "worth". This suggests that protections must be set and maintained for human beings at the beginning of life when a person is very small and doesn't yet resemble a fully formed child out of the womb.

Such protections must also be preserved for those who are at the end of human life when a person may not be able to contribute as expressively to the community, as well as in situations such as stroke, coma or severe mental retardation when patients do not have the same degree of intellectual awareness as that of a fifty year old man at the peak of his career. A logical extension of this principle is that healthcare providers who understand and hold to this biblical view of human dignity should be protected by law when they refuse to participate in any life-taking procedures that have become more and more common in recent years.

A third feature we notice is that work is part of God's good plan for man. In Eden it was meaningful work. We are not told if it was easy or hard, but it had value. What does that have to do with healthcare reform? Leviticus 19:9-10 requires the owners of fields to leave gleanings for the poor to gather for their food. In other words, any needy person who is able-bodied must help himself. If you add this requirement to the original dignity of work, it seems preferable that healthcare reform be set up in such a way that enables able-bodied citizens needing healthcare coverage to find ways to earn what they need, rather than simply receiving money or healthcare handouts. Earning provides the dignity and satisfaction of achievement that comes by helping oneself. Handouts diminish dignity and satisfaction. Additionally, the use of income sliding scales for regulating insurance payments and requiring small co-pays at the time of care are practices that encourage individuals to manage their resources well and participate in the system wisely.

What Are We to Do as We Await God's Ultimate Restoration?
Unfortunately the early chapters of Genesis reveal other relevant but less pleasant views of the human race. We see the ushering in of sickness, pain and death as a result of mankind's rebellion against God, and we learn that these things will be with us until Christ comes again. But it is precisely against this background of marred humanity that God gave His laws, writings and wisdom literature.

To the people of Israel God showed His holiness, revealed His requirements for man, and told them how to live in this difficult, sin-cursed world while waiting for the Redeemer to come. Through the study of these Scriptures we can acquire valuable insight into how God requires us to treat our fellow man. Let me apply some of these principles to one of the most basic questions in the current healthcare discussion: "How essential is it that we make sure that everyone has access to suitable healthcare?"

In the Old Testament God continually called on His people to take special care of the poor and needy. Since the maintenance of health required adequate food and shelter (a financial issue), and personal attention was about the only real help during sickness or treatments of injury (a personal support system issue), we are on safe ground to equate people unable to afford healthcare today with the "poor and needy" as described in Scripture.

By and large, God's calls for His people to take special care of the poor and needy were directed at individuals to be kind to those in need, giving generously. The concept of a governmental mandate to care for the poor and needy is notably absent from the pages of Scripture. Sadly, it has become easier and easier in our day for professing Christians to sit back and think, "Leave healthcare to the government. After all, they already have my tax money to do it."

God, however, always starts with the Christian individual's willingness to be part of His answer to the needs of the world. We must resolve this issue for ourselves before we call out for big government to step in. Good sense alone tells us to try solving a problem at the lowest level possible first. We only move up to a higher level of authority and structure when greater resources than are available at the lower level are needed.

The question is pointed, but it must be asked: Are our hearts truly committed to being part of God's answer to the needy in the area of healthcare? Do we look after those in our own extended families (the original support system)? Do we help our elderly church members get to their doctor's appointments and make sure that they are able to afford their pills? Do we even know if any of our members cannot afford health insurance? What would we do about it once we knew? Are we looking for ways to help our co-workers? Can we participate in local non-profit healthcare initiatives?

If personal healthcare is love in action (and I believe that it can be), then we must remember that the more organized and bureaucratic help becomes, the more the modeling of God's love is lost to the recipients of the help. Higher levels of government involvement and regulation may well be needed to curb the abuses of our present system. But it is never the government's role to step in and do our job of reaching out in love to fellow human beings who bear God's image.

Who Is Worthy of Help?
While we may like to choose who should be helped and how, the New Testament teaches that Christ does not give us the luxury of deciding who is worthy of help in the matter of healthcare reform. In the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), Christ tells us, "Love your neighbor as yourself." He then gives us a parable depicting the most unlikely man who sacrificially helped a needy one whom God had placed in his path. This he did with no regard for the man's social status, nationality, or character. Furthermore, the calls to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) and help our enemies (Exodus 23:4, Proverbs 25:21-22) reinforce the non-discriminatory nature of God's love.

Finally, in order to drive home the high priority of loving our neighbors, Christ used the convicting parable of the sheep and goats to emphasize the importance of the fact that when we either do, or do not "take in a stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick, visit those in prison" we are directly affecting Him. It is chilling, and challenging, to read of those who are banished to eternal damnation because of not caring for the "least of these." (Matthew 25:35-36). Scripture clearly teaches that we cannot afford to shrug off our responsibility to seriously exert ourselves, get out of our comfort zones, and care for the needy around us.

But is reaching out locally and individually enough? What about the many who are not in the support systems that I just described, or who are in support systems that are not doing the job? Right now many people in the United States are suffering from the lack of needed medical treatment or are being crushed under burdensome healthcare costs. Are we, as Christians, required to make sure they are covered? How can we possibly do that in a country of over 300 million people? Is it time to move up to the next layer of resources?

Before dealing with that in the next article, let us be reminded that Scripture says we live in a "now-and-not-yet" time period. Christ has come and inaugurated the Kingdom of God, but it will not be fully finished until He returns. The calling God gives us as 21st century Christians is to continue His kingdom work by loving God, by loving and doing good to our enemies and neighbors, and by spreading the Gospel. May God give us whole-hearted commitment to His Kingdom work, and the wisdom to discern His leading in thorny issues such as healthcare reform.

blog guidelines

Here is a two-minute video clip of the healthcare reform event from which this blog entry was adapted...

view entire video

Our Vision for the Richmond Study Center Blog

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:25:34 -0500

The Richmond Center for Christian Study was established June 2009. Our primary objective this first year has been to develop relationships throughout the Richmond community, especially with its various churches and university communities. As these relationships develop, we want to have a number of people, especially leaders from the churches and university communities, contribute to the blog on a regular basis. These contributions would grapple with a variety of issues pertaining to worldview, apologetics, culture and theology.

There will certainly be some variation of views, and not all views will necessarily reflect the specific views of the Richmond Center for Christian Study, but all submissions will be within the parameters of the study center's statement of faith. This way, it will truly be a blog of the Richmond community.