Archive for the ‘Religion’ category

God’s Judgement, Love, and the Haiti Crisis

January 19th, 2010

Opening Thoughts

A powerful 7.0 earthquake hit haiti this past week and killed at least 72,000.  Countless people are starving and more will eventually die from diseases spawned from the unburied corpses filling the streets of Port-au-Prince. I feel a connection with the people of Haiti. My parents served there in the 1980’s doing both medical and building missions and they saw first hand the destructive rule of Bébé Doc Duvalier. Over the years, our family sponsored several needy kids from Haiti and I grew up reading letters from our sponsored children telling of their life in Haiti. In last week’s earthquake, my wife agonized in prayer for many days over the life of an APU friend who was missing, and eventually found alive, in the rubble of the Hotel Montana.  With my own history in mind, I want to address this earthquake and how I see God’s judgment and love at work.

God’s Judgement Today

The internet is abuzz with the infamous remarks made by Pat Robertson on on the 700 Club TV show.

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal. And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti; on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, et cetera. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have — and we need to pray for them — a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy, I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now, we’re helping the suffering people, and the suffering is unimaginable.

Most disturbing is the historical falsity presented as “fact” from a guy who founded a University. Napoleon III did not come into power in France until 44 years after the Haitian revolt.  If Robertson can’t get his history correct on such a simple thing, I don’t trust him in more complex matters.  So on its face Robertson’s “true story” must be called into serious question.

The primary problem with this quote, however, is Robertson’s biblical hermeneutic and application which I have repeatedly called into question.   In this particular instance, I would like to distance myself from Robertson’s assertion that natural disasters are the judgment of God.  I disagree with Robertson’s view for one simple reason; we are not in an age of Natural Judgement but an age of judgment through grace.

YHWH has not changed–He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God has appointed differing ages of judgment in order to establish his unchanging plan of salvation.  In other words, God’s method of judgement upon the world is different today than it was in the Old Testament, and different from the Age to come, but his overall purpose is the same–redemption of the lost.

First, unlike some other Christian commentators, I do not have a moral or ethical problem with God judging nations by the sword or natural disaster.  Clearly God did this during the Old Testament period where He punished whole nations for the sins of their Kings and leaders (Isa 1:1-20; Jer 5:15-17; Lam 2:1-22).  I don’t claim to understand it, I even cringe at it, but I trust that God’s judgement upon these nations in the Old Testament were fair and designed to serve YHWH’s purpose.

Second, God will some future day judge the nations for their actions.  The Old Testament is clear in teaching that in the “Day of the Lord” (an End of Times judgement) God will hold to account all the nations of the world for their wicked deeds.

For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations.
As you have done, it shall be done to you;
your deeds shall return on your own head (Obediah 15. ESV)

Third, the world today exists in the age of Christ’s Judgement of Grace.  God has, for a season, forestalled the judgement of sword and nature upon the nations so they might instead have an opportunity to respond to the judgement of Christ expressed in his unselfish act of love on the Cross.

“[Jesus says] Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.

The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”

Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light. (John 12:27-36)”

God’s judgement today is not with sword and quake–used to drive the sinful to their knees in fear–it is in the death of Christ lifted up on the Cross–used to drive the sinful to their knees in love. Through Jesus’ act of love for the world, God is judging the nations who refuse to accept Jesus as the light of life.

Finally, how then should we perceive natural disasters if they are not a judgment of God?

  1. Natural disasters are a manifestation of corruption brought upon God’s creation through the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:1-24).
  2. Natural disasters are the manifestation of Nature’s true longing to be freed from the shackles of sin’s corruption (Romans 8:18-25).

Application for Haiti

Haiti has suffered from a tremendous disaster, but the death and suffering are not a result of God’s judgment and I would argue that they are not even the result of the earthquake.  The death and destruction in haiti is the result of the sinful leaders of that nation who have kept those people in poverty and allowed the earthquake to bring destruction.

1. The death and suffering in Haiti is a direct result of greed.

Since 1992, the United States has given 3 Billion dollars in aid to Haiti, yet it remains the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.  The money was stolen by Haiti’s leaders and the more money the US poured in, the worse things got for Haiti.  The poor have no escape from Haiti because the money given to them was stolen by evil men.

2. The death and suffering in Haiti is a direct result of their value system.

In 1989, a 7.0 earthquake hit San Francisco (not exactly the picture of moral virtue), yet in that quake only 57 people were killed.  Why?  Because the leaders in the US, although sinful, still value the life of its citizenry. Based on our values, we impose building codes and invest Billions in infrastructures designed to protect the poor and wealthy alike from earthquakes.  Haiti’s leaders do not value life, so instead of spending money on infrastructure, they continued their policies of poverty.

3. The death and suffering of Haiti is a direct result of their religious faith.

Haiti’s predominant faith is Voodoo–a belief that magic and the spirits will save them from disaster.  Tony Campolo remarks on this very thing in his recent response to the earthquake.

Haiti’s former dictator, Jean-Claude Duvalier, was a voodoo witchdoctor, and when he was driven from power it was widely rumored that he offered an infant boy as a blood sacrifice to Satan, and cursed the country with an evil spell to bring disasters and suffering upon the Haitian people. You may not believe in that sort of thing, but many Haitians do. Now we must show them that God’s love, expressed through sacrificial people, is greater than the forces of darkness.

The Haitian people are ruled by evil spirits.  They allow politicians to rule who share their same faith and fears–leaders who seek power through evil forces. The curse of Duvalier may not have “caused” the earthquake, but it does remind us that the faith of a nation can enslave a people to poverty resulting the due penalty of their sin.

Ultimately, the hope for Haiti is that they see the light of Christ’s judgment of grace on the cross and turn to Him for freedom.  Haiti will only find this freedom in the giving of love–not dollars.   Love is expressed not through the giving of Billions, but through the message of the Gospel and the sacrifice of the many Christians who have given up the Western lifestyle to become the hands and feet of of Jesus to the people.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Manhattan Declaration-A Call to Conscience or Compromise?

November 25th, 2009

Screen shot 2009-11-25 at 12.39.57 PMThe Manhattan Declaration is a formal “call to arms” to all Christians asking us to engage in the major issues that are shaping our modern society. Following is the summary of this declaration.

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Human Life

The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Although the protection of the weak and vulnerable is the first obligation of government, the power of government is today often enlisted in the cause of promoting what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death.” We pledge to work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in conscience, take the same stand.

Marriage

The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious traditions. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.

Religious Liberty

Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized. The threat to these fundamental principles of justice is evident in efforts to weaken or eliminate conscience protections for healthcare institutions and professionals, and in anti- discrimination statutes that are used as weapons to force religious institutions, charities, businesses, and service providers either to accept (and even facilitate) activities and relationships they judge to be immoral, or go out of business. Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including government itself—on which society depends.

Unjust Laws

As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of sheer human will.

Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.

Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.

Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

I have not yet read the entire declaration available for download from their website, but I hope to get to it soon.

Who Signed It

There are literally hundreds of thousands of signers to this Declaration, but below are a few names I recognized from the main list of supporters.

Randy Alcorn
Founder and Director, Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM) (Sandy, OR)
Kay Arthur
CEO and Co-founder, Precept Ministries International (Chattanooga, TN)
Gary Bauer
President, American Values; Chairman, Campaign for Working Families (Washington D.C.)
Ken Boa
President, Reflections Ministries (Atlanta, GA)
Timothy Clinton
President, American Association of Christian Counselors (Forest, VA)
Chuck Colson
Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)
Rev. Daniel Delgado
Board of Directors, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference & Pastor, Third Day Missions Church (Staten Island, NY)
Dr. James Dobson
Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)
Dinesh D’Souza
Writer & Speaker (Rancho Santa Fe, CA)
Dr. Wayne Grudem
Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix, AZ)
Rev. Ken Hutcherson
Pastor, Antioch Bible Church (Kirkland, WA)
Rev. Tim Keller
Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York, NY)
Dr. Richard Land
President, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC (Washington, DC)
Josh McDowell
Founder, Josh McDowell Ministries (Plano, TX)
Dr. Tom Oden
Theologian, United Methodist Minister and Professor, Drew University (Madison, NJ)
Marvin Olasky
Editor-in-Chief, World Magazine and provost, The Kings College (New York City, NY)
Dr. J.I. Packer
Board of GovernorsÕ Professor of Theology, Regent College (Canada)
Dr. Ron Sider
Director, Evangelicals for Social Action (Wynnewood, PA)
Joni Eareckson Tada
Founder and CEO, Joni and Friends International Disability Center (Agoura Hills, CA)
Paul Young
COO & Executive VP, Christian Research Institute (Charlotte, NC)
Ravi Zacharias
Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Norcross, GA)

Here are my questions:

  • What do you think of this declaration?  Is it a genuine call to engage the Christian conscience or a compromise of our faith?
  • Will you sign the declaration? Why or why not?
  • If you sign it, would you really follow through with the call to civil disobedience and risk imprisonment?
  • Share/Bookmark

Throwing in the Towel on Jesus

November 18th, 2009

In my last post, I shared part of Lionel’s story and his frustrations with church.  Today I want to share part of Robert’s story and why he has thrown in the towel on Jesus.  Robert was once a professional Southern Baptist pastor and now he is a professed atheist.  A friend wrote him a letter of concern, and following begins Robert’s “Letter to a Christian Friend.”

Dear Friend,

I thought that you might be surprised, as most of my old friends and my family have been. It is difficult for most Christians to believe that a former southern baptist minister could be an Atheist. You responded very much like a lot of them and did so with concern, love, an obvious bias that I understand, and some false assumptions. I have no problem explaining my journey to you or anyone who has a sincere desire to know, but you really need to keep an open mind, because as you already have in your e-mail, you will be tempted to assume some things that simply are false. Nothing that you wrote that supports your faith is new to me and I think you know me well enough to know that. They are convictions I once held myself. I think you also know the answer to some of the questions you posed; especially the one about whether or not I ever was a Christian. You, of all people, know better than to ask such a question. As arrogant as this may sound, if I wasn’t a Christian, then no one is.

Let me answer some of your other direct questions. I do not believe in anything supernatural or spiritual, therefore I do not beleive in a god. Christianity at it’s core is a religion based on faith (believing without evidence). In fact there is no evidence that the God of the bible exists, there is only personal experience. This is how there can be so many different religions and so many different Christian denominations that can claim to have the truth. None of them have the truth, they have belief without evidence. So, to your question about death and an afterlife….when I die, I’m dead, gone, that’s it. No I will not see my wife and children somewhere in a “spiritual place.” No such place exists…

As you can imagine, Robert has received a lot of replies to his open letter defending his new found Atheism. I would like to make a few observations of my own that, for me, reflect the core of Robert’s dilemma.

1. Convictions are a poor substitute for Conversion:  What I find most striking in Robert’s response is that nowhere does he discuss a historical relationship with Jesus.  Instead, what Robert describes is giving up one set of philosophical convictions about “god” for another set of convictions about the “absence of god.”   I think Robert reflects a great swath of Western Faith that relies heavily on adhereence to s set of convictions that have limited emphasis on a personal encounter with Jesus.

2. Evidence  is meaningless without an Encounter: I am not surprised Robert rejects the existence of the supernatural because clearly he never had an encounter with YHWH.  He became a professional pastor, bought into a system of religious beliefs, but nowhere did he ever experience a personal encounter with Jesus or the power of the Spirit.   How do I know?  Because Robert says so.  His circular reasoning is based on a false syllogism, “God is supernatural, I have not experienced the supernatural, therefore God does not exist.”  In the end, Robert’s atheistic faith is still based on a narcissistic worldview instead of a external relationship.

3. Conversion and Encounter are the key. The Aposlle Paul is an early example of how these two elements stand at the center of Faith in Christ.  Paul was a Jew who killed Christians for a living.  He killed Christians based on a very strong set of convictions, rooted in the Old Testament evidence about God.  The evidence never changed and Paul’s convictions about God were right on target.  What changed for Paul was his encounter with Jesus and his conversion through the Holy Spirit.

Robert’s story is a lesson for all those who preach the Gospel of Jesus.  There are many “Roberts” in our churches.  Many have been created by false pastors and leaders who have relied on convictions and evidence to the exclusion of conversion and encounter.  But just as bad are those who fight endlessly to change the convictions of how we “do” church.  How many blogs have you read that argue that the only real way to “do” communion is with a meal?  How many websites have you read that rail against any who “do” church in a big building and insist that the “house” is the only place where God dwells?  In reality, all of these trendy arguments are focused on changing people’s convictions and they will eventually lead to even more disillusioned “Roberts”.

If you are struggling with the inability to “worship” YHWH, the answer will not be found changing your location, changing the size of your congregation, or changing your style of worship. The answer is found in a personal encounter with Jesus and a conversion of the heart empowered by the Spirit.

  • Share/Bookmark

Big Government Faith

September 26th, 2009

In my last post, I shared a favorable review of Skye Jethani’s exhortation for the church to abandon the “Daisy Cutter Doctrine”.  Jethani was right on.  But at the end of my post, I shared my concern as well. I wrote;

The implications of this “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” are huge for our time. Jethani rightly points out some flaws within the church in seeking to fulfill our Big Mission using Big Solutions from Big Corporations, but I think he also reflects one of the major blind-spots of our culture. Does this flaw reflect Jethani’s hypocrisy? Or is it simply his own generational bias? I will share the details of Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine”

My concern about Jethani’s own “Daisy Cutter Doctrine” is raised because of his views espoused in another post entitled, “Pro-Choice but Anti-Healthcare?” In truth, while Jethani rightly points out that Big Mission using Big Solutions form Big Corporations is not good.  He, like many other well intended Christians, seem to believe that Big Government is the solution to our Big Mission. Is Jethani’s post on Healthcare, when compared to his Daisy Cutter Doctrine, a demonstration of hypocrissy?  Cultural blindness?  Pandering to help sales for his magazine?  Or something else?  I don’t know because Jethani wont discuss the seeming contradiction of his two posts.

In response to his post, I posted the a comment on his blog.  Yet despite Jethani’s rhetoric about “entering the debate” Jethani was never willing to post my comment.  I attempted several times over a week long period to engage jethani, but it seems his definitino of “debate” is different from the one I read in Webster’s Dictionary.

So I decided to post my comment as “An Open Letter to Skye Jethani“.  Even if he is unable to offer a coherent defense of his position, then I am hoping someone who is better informed can help me out.

Hi, Skye. may I call you Skye?

My name is Joe. I am new to your site. I apologize in advance for the directness of some of my questions below, but I am truly hoping to get direct answers in return if you are willing to engage on this with me. You seem an intelligent writer and thinker, and I hope to get some insight into how you think on this issue since it is quite differently than me.

Your post begins with the assertion that those who are pro-life and oppose govt. run healthcare contradict themselves. I don’t know anything about the group you mention, and maybe they do have the flaws you write about, but on a personal level I would humbly submit my disagreement with your assertion that the only pro-life position includes govt. run healthcare.

I came to your blog when a friend referred me to your post on the “Daisy Cutter” Theology. It is very well written and I plan on writing favorable a post on my blog with some quotes [which is my previous post]. However, if you stand by what you wrote in that post, then I think you should apply it not just to missions, but to all aspects of your life as a follower of Jesus. There is no secular or sacred in our life, only the mission of the King.

Here is my concern Skye, in your other post [on the Daisy Cutter Doctrine], you write, “We have incorrectly made the scale of our methods conform to the scale of our mission. We have assumed that the magnitude of the ends should be proportional to the magnitude of the means. And in the process we’ve revealed how captivated our imaginations really are to consumerism.
I think that is exactly what you are doing here. You are wrongly assuming that the scale of your “compassion:” must be met by a massive systemic overhaul–not church-run but govt. run. Interesting how the “massive program for massive impact” solution is acceptable when it is the things we value and “consumerist” when it is something someone else values. Interesting how we reject “systems” in one area of life, but promote them in others where we think it serves our goals. And I say, “we” because I am prone to the same things Skye, if I do not take the wise council of brothers and sisters into my life.

Before I move on, let me give a little background on myself. I am a church planter and have been on a State run healthcare plan for the past 3 years. You have a good job Skye, so I assume you have healthcare from a private insurer. Do you have some personal experience with a successful govt. run healthcare system? My guess is that you would not trade in your private health insurance to be on my State insurance, would you? Based on my experience with both systems, I would trade insurance coverage with you any time.

You write, “But our conviction about life should also lead us to care about the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance and therefore receive inadequate care.”
Can you give me the breakdown of who is in this group of 45 Million? Your latter comment seems to indicate you think this number reflects the poor and unemployed. Do you really think that is the demographic of the total 45 Million? Just curious to know if you really understand this number or if you are just repeating what you read somewhere?

You wrote, “Our belief in the value of life should drive us to seek a system that will care for our brothers and sisters after they are born and not just before.
Over the past few years, I have been without insurance a few times (mostly when the State messes up my paperwork and we lose it until we file again). We have several friends, and churches around us, who support a state run system and say, like you, that “no one should be without insurance.” Yet interestingly enough, when we were without insurance not one of these people, or churches, offered to help us pay for insurance, or pay for some of our medical bills. So, since this is your value, please tell me how many people who lack insurance do you personally assist Skye? Or is it that you just want other people to pay for your compassion? I see from your site, you are invited to speak at a lot of conferences. How much does it cost to go to one of those and run one? I wonder, if that money was better prioritized to help people instead of promoting careers or sell books or magazines, if the church could not do more for the Gospel? I wonder why the church needs the system of the State to care for people, when that is our mission not the mission of a secular world?

I am also interested to know, can you tell me exactly how much this new system will cost? Do you know how it will be paid for? Who will pay for it? The Bible speaks about indebtedness and its destructive power. Do you think massive debt and deflationary spending is a good solution and demonstrates compassion for the next generation who will be forced to work and pay for it?

You also wrote, ” We should care that the uninsured are 1.6 times more likely to die from cancer than those with insurance who are diagnosed and treated earlier.”
You are right, we should. The problem, however, with your comparison Skye is that you are using the wrong statistic to make your point. The 1.6% statistic you cite demonstrates that people who do not have the Private healthcare system (the one you think is completely broken and needs replaced) are more likely to die from cancer. In other words, the private healthcare system in America is successful in keeping people with cancer alive who would otherwise die. So clearly the system of healthcare itself is not broken if it is saving lives. Skye, if you want to make a statistically meaningful argument, you need to compare for me the rate of death from Cancer for the “fully” insured person in the Canadian and European healthcare systems vs. the Private US system? That is the correct comparison. Please look this up and then tell me. Do more people in the State run systems die of cancer or in the US private system? Which is more successful and caring for people? Do you know? I actually don’t know either, so when you find out please reinforce your argument with the right statistics.

You wrote, “We should care that we have a system that discriminates against those with preexisting conditions, the weakest and most vulnerable in our society.
I agree 100%. My wife and I are in this boat if we try and get private insurance in the future when our income is higher and that scares me. But, this is also a red-herring (either that or it demonstrates a lack of understanding about the issue itself). The US Govt. can force private insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, AND force them not to drop people who cost “to much.” This law wont cost the taxpayer a single penny in Govt. bureaucracy.

Do you also know Skye that in many states, the government prevents a person from carrying their insurer from one job to the next. It is the govt. that prevents insurance portability.

There are many practical and meaningful solutions to the problems with healthcare that don’t include a State run system. but do you understand why these solutions wont pass? Because politicians want power. Power over people. Power over their lives. Power to control things. I think those Christians who are in favor of a State run system (and I do realize you are on the fence here brother), have an inherent misunderstanding about why govt exists (not just in the US, but the systems of govt itself). If you care to read further, I offer you these couple links.
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/03/one-blood-many-governments.html
http://www.morethancake.org/2006/09/laws-demonstrate-immorality-not-goodness.html

You seem wiling to wait and see how the govt. runs GM before deciding on healthcare, but that is not the indicator you need to look at. Think about this, why is it that NOT ONE SINGLE PROPOSAL now before the US House or Senate mandates that our Congressman must lay aside their Gold Plated healthcare plan and move to this new Government system? Will Barack Obama get the same plan as me? If this solution is so wonderful, why is the political class not willing to receive healthcare under the same system they propose for all other Americans?

I judge leadership Skye by actions, not rhetoric. You write for a magazine on leadership. Is this the kind of leadership you value and put your faith in? Leadership that forces others to do what the Congress itself is unwilling to do? I trust and value leadership that says, “follow me” not leadership that says, “you jump first” How do you define leadership Skye?

Finally, I would suggest that any desire for a “system” that forces compassion is not compassion. For the Christian, the solution is not private insurance or state insurance. I think the solution lies with individuals and churches who must demonstrate compassion by caring for the sick. May I ask your indulgence to read this parable I wrote that expresses my own view on this issue?
http://www.morethancake.org/2009/09/a-parable-of-political-compassion.html

Wow, that got long. I am sure my post reads with a lot more judgement than I truly intend Skye–I fear it is a shortcoming of the intent and probably my own failings as a writer. My apologies in advance, but I do hope you will consider a reply.

Thanks and God bless.

So what do you say?   Is the Daisy Cutter Doctrine alive in well among the Christians who seek Big Government solutions instead of Kingdom solutions?

  • Share/Bookmark