Explaining Health Care Reform & “Christian” Reflections Thereof [REPOST]
Can the common man understand this health care debate? Is there a particularly Christian perspective on health care? Also, a curious and unexpected memorial to Ted Kennedy. Read on.
[Editor's Note: This is a repost of an article posted in August. It was fairly popular at the time, and in light of the potential difficulties the current health care bill may be facing due to the fight for Senator Kennedy's Senate seat, I thought it might be helpful to post this up again. I'm also posting this to go along with a recent post I put up on my personal blog called "I sort of want this health care bill to die." It has to do with this Massachusetts's Senate race and health care reform. I hope these resources spur your thoughts on these issues facing our country.]
Below is a series of illustrations by Dan Roam and Dr. Tony Jones of Digital Roam explaining the current Health Care system and proposed reforms to that system. This is by far the best explanation I’ve seen. So much so, it is forcing me to break a bunch of my own rules concerning this site and perhaps even give some new freedoms for what I post up here. Take a few moments and look through this series of slides and familiarize yourself with these ideas. Analysis will follow below. A couple of things before you start: I have no idea why this guy calls these “napkins” nor do I know why he says there are only four. Don’t let that distract you too much. The quality is such that I am more than willing to forgive these minor lapses of clarity.
A Theology of Ethics, Truth, & Contemporary Applications
In a continuation of an exchange concerning Slavery in the Bible, some atheist critiques are addressed concerning ethics, the Bible, and modern society.
_______________
[EDITOR'S NOTE: At my personal blog, the long way home, I have been working on a series of posts responding to some old atheist friends of mine on the topic of slavery, ethics, and the Bible. So far: what the Bible says, why I'm doing the series, Philosophy & Ethics, and now, Theology & Ethics. If you want, read the other posts and feel free to get in on the lively discussion. I'm posting this article on this site, because I believe it addresses very real societal and cultural ideas and assumptions that affect our everyday lives and do not just belong to the areas of academia or theology. Let me know if you disagree.]
Objective Truth & Morality
The ideas mentioned in the previous post of transcendent ethical principles (and not simple behavioral norms) and a hierarchy of those principles (and not simplistic applications) within ethics are nothing new to Philosophy. Those enough could show the overly simplistic nature of the usual argument concerning general Christian ethics made when talking about slavery in the Bible. The Bible does not have simplistic do/don’t do ethics. It has consistent transcendent principles that are then wisely and faithfully applied in ways that look differently throughout history. This is the way that ethics works, even on a secular level. But, these are not uniquely Christian. There are ways that Christianity and the Bible uniquely further inform our ethics.
The first thing, and the most important thing I want everyone to get from this post is that neither the Bible nor historic Christianity believes in Objective Morality or Objective Truth. This is an idea of modernism. Modernism redefined “Truth” to mean anything that has a one-to-one correspondence with created reality. An unintended consequence of this mindset was that the only vehicles for Truth, then, became history and science. This meant that anything that called itself “true” had to be speaking in either historical or scientific terms — nothing else. Christians were influenced by these ideas and then began defending the Bible on the basis of these assumptions (best example: Creation “science”). This even seeped into many Christian articulations of Morality (“there is only one set of ‘good things’ people everywhere, at all times, should do”). But this is not the Biblical view of Truth nor Morality. The Biblical view is not that of objective Morality/Truth, but of an objective standard for Morality/Truth. This is such an important distinction. The Bible relocates Truth and Morality as anything that has a one-to-one correspondence with Ultimate Reality — the nature and character of God. This exists outside of created reality (and therefore outside the realms of history and science). In that case art, poetry, stories, myths, and even children stories can now fully be relied upon for truth and moral principles even if they have little or no basis in history, science, or universal applications of the ethical principles. There is an objective standard for Morality and Truth that is now subjectively applied by using wisdom, discernment, discourse, debate, intellectual thought, and engagement — not naive cut and paste applications of the Bible to life.
“An Evolving Creation: Oxymoron or Fruitful Insight?” by Keith Miller
In the first in a series of posts going through the book “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” (Keith Miller, ed.), we look at the Scientific and Theological justifications for the very idea of an “Evolving Creation”.
_______________
As the title of this essay suggests, it sets the tone for the rest of the book by laying out what exactly the authors mean by an “evolving creation”. Miller begins by defining terms. “Evolution,” as he uses it, “refers to the descent with modification of all living things from a common ancestor. Miller talks of “Creation” as a noun meaning anything “to which God has given being” and as a verb meaning God’s past and present action of bringing things into existence and sustaining them there (closely related to the idea of Providence). In light of these seemingly innocuous, uncontroversial definitions, can we really say that an idea of an “Evolving Creation” is inherently antithetical and contradictory? Miller, nor I, believe this is the case.
I’m Coming Out (Intro to an Evolving Creation)
Can one more voice crying out from the evangelical wilderness make a difference amidst the rising and seemingly never-ending din concerning Science “versus” Faith? I guess we’re about to find out.
_______________
You ever start reading a book and can immediately tell that it is going to be a pivotal book in your life? It hasn’t happened often, but the few times it has, it has indeed proven to be a life-altering experience. I’m feeling that right now.
Almost exactly a year ago, I met my now dear friend Chris Martin (not the guy from Coldplay). We were sitting there at a party (where he first met his now fiancee), and he began telling me about his experiences at L’Abri, a Christian retreat/study center in Switzerland started by Francis Schaeffer. In that conversation Chris told me about a book he had read from during his study. It was a large, poorly-graphically-designed, 525-page collection of essays called Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. It piqued my interest. I immediately purchased the book and am only now getting around to reading it. This is a book I know will affect me for the rest of my life. And that brings me to my secret. It’s something about myself that I have kept hidden from the vast majority of Christians I’ve known. I’ve wondered if/when/how to reveal this to the world. And I think now is the time.
I, Paul Burkhart, am totally on board with Darwinian Evolution.
The Infinite Beauty of Beauty
A nine-month old brain child concerning Beauty and many of its components is finally done being birthed on a blog. Come see…
_______________
In about January of this past year, I received word that seven months from then, in August, I would be giving a message at Epiphany Fellowship on the topic of Beauty, of all things. This terrified me and I immediately began listening to every lecture, reading every article, and checking out every book in the library on the topic to prepare. Then I began working on the manuscript for this message. By the time I finished, I had produced a 43-page manuscript for a 40-minute message. The message answers several questions: Why we long for Beauty? What is Beauty? What Things are Beautiful? and How do we respond to Beauty?
The message went really well, but of course, a lot was cut out of the full manuscript for the sake of time. For that reason, a couple of months ago, I started a series on my blog that went through the various sections of the manuscript in bite-sized chunks, so that others could read it. Well, yesterday, three months after the original message was given, I finished that series on my personal blog and I wanted to plug it to the readers of this site. Below, you’ll find a complete directory of the fourteen parts of the series, along with links to the full audio and original manuscript that the message was based upon. I hope this is helpful and edifying to all of you. Be sure to send feedback, as I hope to build this out even more in the future, perhaps into a book-length project. We’ll see. Enjoy.
Explaining Health Care Reform & “Christian” Reflections Thereof
Can the common man understand this health care debate? Is there a particularly Christian perspective on health care? Also, a curious and unexpected memorial to Ted Kennedy. Read on.
_______________
Okay, everyone up to speed now? So are there any uniquely Christian thoughts on this? First, of immediate concern for those Christians whose consciences are so inclined to view abortion as a fundamentally political and legislative issue (no sarcasm in that statement, by the way; it’s a totally valid way that the Holy Spirit moves in many believers); in Obama’s most recent weekly address, as he “debunks” various ideas being spread about the reform, he says: “Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform.” So apparently (at least from what the carefully phrased political talk) it would seem that these sets of reform do not concern abortion.
So with the one health issue it seems Christians have anything to say something about out of the way (yeah, there was some sarcasm in that one), what else does the Christian have to engage with in this debate? Well, before we get quite there, two foundational things that have plagued my thinking about this:
Let’s play: “Guess Who’s Doctrinal Statement?”
Given just the “Core Doctrines” of a Church, can we evaluate its true Orthodoxy and faithfulness?
_______________
Okay, we’re going to a play a little game I like to call “Guess Whose Doctrinal Statement.” I’ll give you the doctrinal statement of a popular American Church and you all try and think whose it is. Then we’ll reveal the answer and talk about it. Everyone ready?
Okay, here’s the doctrinal statement:
- WE BELIEVE…the entire Bible is inspired by God, without error and the authority on which we base our faith, conduct and doctrine.
- WE BELIEVE…in one God who exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to this earth as Savior of the world.
- WE BELIEVE…Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood for our sins. We believe that salvation is found by placing our faith in what Jesus did for us on the cross. We believe Jesus rose from the dead and is coming again.
- WE BELIEVE…water baptism is a symbol of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and a testimony to our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
- WE BELIEVE…in the regular taking of Communion as an act of remembering what the Lord Jesus did for us on the cross.
- WE BELIEVE…every believer should be in a growing relationship with Jesus by obeying God’s Word, yielding to the Holy Spirit and by being conformed to the image of Christ.
- WE BELIEVE…as children of God, we are overcomers and more than conquerors and God intends for each of us to experience the abundant life He has in store for us.
_________________
So whose doctrinal statement do you think it is? Is it:
- a. Mars Hill Church (Mark Driscoll)
- b. Bethlehem Baptist Church (John Piper)
- c. Lakewood Church (Joel Osteen)
- d. Mars Hill Bible Church (Rob Bell)
- e. The Village Church (Matt Chandler)
- f. Westboro Baptist Church (Fred Phelps)
- g. None of the above
and the winner is . . . found here.
So what do we do with this?
Is God Done with the American Church? Perhaps Not.
Does an ever increasingly secular and post-Christian America necessarily mean a smaller and weaker Evangelical Church?
_______________
Christianity is growing numerically around the world! With books such as The Next Christendom and Theology in the Context of World Christianity we are reminded of the work of the Holy Spirit in communions in third-world countries and even nations like China. However, we are reminded of the decline of Christianity in North America. Not only are mainline churches shrinking (as they have been since the 1960s) but even the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest of conservative Protestant denominations, will be half it’s size by 2050.
So the question facing American Christianity now is, Are we good as dead? Is there no sign of renewal, reform, and revival for American Christianity? Before any verdict is announced, I think it would be most beneficial to ponder about recent events regarding two very dissimilar conservative evangelical denominations and see if our prayers might be more motivated to prayer for a move by the Holy Spirit in American evangelicalism.
Two of the bigger stories from this summer’s plethora of synods, assemblies, and conventions have come from the biggest denomination and one of the smallest. Both the Southern Baptist Convention and the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church witnessed historic decisions and events within their assemblies in June. The evangelical empire itself saw the rise of young pastors in the SBC call for a Great Commission Resurgence and for a task force to examine how the largest denomination in America might be more efficient (and more biblical) in being intentionally missional and Great Commission-friendly.
WTFWJD? | (on Christian cursing)
"Andrew Murray" by Amy Roberts
More Christians of prominence are being “accused” of profanity from the pulpit. How do Christians navigate the increasingly clouding waters of holiness in speech?
_________________
[NOTE: no curse words are used in this article other than some mild "profanity" used in pastor Ed Young's linked video and in one of the linked movie clips]
UPDATE 9/11/09: Patrol Magazine has just posted a great editorial on this topic that I cannot recommend highly enough.
This is a tough topic to write about. I don’t know that I can beat Jon Acuff’s article on Stuff Christians Like, or cause as much of a flurry as pastor Ed Young, but I would like to lend my thoughts to the discussion. By the way, before we start, in the interest of full disclosure: I curse. In fact, probably more than most Christians.
First and foremost: God does call us to purity. To holiness. To right living. Sin should not abound because grace is abundant. Christians are supposed to be pure in contrast to the ways the rest of the world is dark. We are called to look different than “non-Christians” in affection, thought, conduct, and speech and I have definitely failed much in this respect. Words are very powerful. They can bring communities together or tear them apart. This is what Colossians 3:8 is talking about. Paul mentions several things that can hurt others in a relational sense and his final thing is “obscene talk”. Coarse, filthy, and inappropriate statements about others can infect an entire group as much as anger, gossip, or slander, whether or not they use “bad” words. Speech is a precious gift God has given to us and it should be used to His glory and His honor. But, what in humans glorifies him the most? As broken, weak sinners, what is it that God calls us to over and over and over again?
For your life – Flee!
(Adam Papadatos Photography)
_________________
The words of this message are as the moment a sound comes to your ears so powerful that it is as if a bomb struck, and all other sounds are silenced into a buzz; and in that moment, all you can think about is one thing, and that one thing is clear. There is a din, a clamor, a cacophony of sounds and voices vying for our ears and attention and hearts, and souls, today. But God does not yell. Although God has the most powerful voice that will ever exist, He speaks in a still small voice. Listen.
I believe God speaks in this man’s words.
“We have got to lay our lives down for the purposes of God. This is not a Sunday school picnic for the church of Jesus Christ; this is not an invitation to have continuous good times. This is a war for the souls of men.
Come out from among them. Run for your life. Because this is about your life. This is not just about an opposing viewpoint or conflicting theology; this is about your life.
John Piper on Obama & Abortion
by Reform & Revive
______________
This is a video by John Piper of Desiring God Ministries in Minneapolis Minnesota. This is powerful. I’m still kind of really from it. The are difficult times in which to live indeed.
Thanks go to Ryan Burns for the video.
The Scarlet Cord
How a prostitute can both save a city in the past and teach us how our souls are saved in the present.
_______________
Our dear brother Paul of Burkhart not long ago wrote a letter asking that a theme of “women in ministry” be written on. As I am in graduate school and life has taken me in its undertow, over a month has passed since. I have been thinking all the while about this, though, and I thought of all the women whose ministries have deeply engraved Christ in my heart and mind. Women like Elizabeth Elliot, Kristyn Getty, Grace Driscoll, Grace Irwin (who wrote a book called Servant of Slaves), Brooke Fraser, and women only some have been graced to know, as Susan Hermes, Helen Toroian, Rachel McConnell, Lisa Rodebaugh, and Linda Sieben. I believe all of us have known women who have indelibly nurtured Christ in us.
(more…)
4.14.2009 (Reflections on Kalas and Easter) [a myspace import]
Facebook is too public for private matters. Everyone’s there. Even those who pay me. They should not be privy to the private. (Did I just say myspace is less public? Truth. No one’s here. That’s why).
Mr Kalas passed yesterday (I prefer not to euphemize, but, to-day, I will). He was the voice that was larger than baseball itself; at least for the Philadelphia area. Even I, a Philly-Sports hater and diehard fan of all things Pittsburgh loved the voice of Summer. I loved him even more than our own dear Fratare, and he was special in my 10, 11 and 12 year old heart (think: Bonds and Bobby-Bo). Yet even when someone that special leaves us, the world does not stop its spin, the game goes on, and though we grieve, their vapor has passed. The world and yes, even the game, stops for no one. What a humbling thought this is. We are only specks in the theatre of life; life that has stretched countless millennia. Our span is nothing.
(more…)
Wickedness, Righteousness, & Changing Culture
“The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion. . . When the wicked rise, people hide themselves but when they perish, the righteous increase.” — Proverbs 28:1, 28
_______________
Looking at the verse above, we see an interesting thing: wickedness and unity are negatively correlated. When the wicked rise, people “hide themselves.” In other words, wickedness and humanism go hand in hand. As righteousness decreases within a society, people begin to think less collectively and more in terms of self-preservation, self-exaltation, and self-esteem. Why is this? I think there is a principle within humans I’m calling “moral entropy.” The law of entropy is that “all things will move from a state of order to disorder, unless a greater force is acted upon it.” This is the state of all created things, and I would argue it is also the state of the moral state of human beings. Unless a force greater than the wickedness of humans is exerted upon them, people will move ever increasingly to further moral disarray. So what happens when this “greater force” is exerted on humans to such a point that their wickedness begins to perish? Not only does righteousness itself increase, but a righteous people characterized by unity is formed (see. the end of verse 28).
The New York Times on Mark Driscoll
At Reform & Revive, I try to offer only original content, but this was something I couldn’t pass up. A friend and fellow “Westminsterian”, Art Boulet, put a post up on his blog a few days ago containing an article about Mark Driscoll that appeared in the New York Times. I found both the article and the discussion that followed in the comments section fascinating.
What Ben & Jerry told me about Jesus
Last night I picked up a new Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream called “Imagine Whirled Peace.” It’s this amazing Caramel and Sweet Cream-swirled Ice Cream with chocolate peace signs and toffee pieces throughout. It was amazing. This morning I saw the top in the trash and it got me thinking . . .
The Ice Cream is dedicated to John Lennon and his song “Imagine” (duh). Other than the twenty-something idealists that plan on saving the world, most people scoff at the Lennon’s notions of no borders, no religion, and “world peace.” Despite my twenty-something-”ness”, I typically fall into the scoffing camp. But why do we? Why doesn’t it resonate with us when people talk of such idealism?
Staring into the trash can, thinking these thoughts, I was reminded of my old roommate. A non-practicing Jew who would say he is practicing (just in the way he deems appropriate right now in this time of life). So, like I said: non-practicing (but I digress). I had a talk with him once about why Jews don’t believe Jesus was their Messiah. I pointed out all the different prophecies and such and he responded by telling me that there was one prophecy – the most important one – that Jesus never fulfilled. He said that the true Jewish Messiah would bring about unprecedented eternal “world peace.” So, as long as there was still warring and killing and death and disease, the Messiah had not come.
I gave the typical response you would expect us Christians to give: a non response that really didn’t help him. I just told him how there was this “already but not yet” dimension to what Christ accomplished, and the “peace” Jesus ushered in (that we can experience now) was primarily spiritual, not temporal. Feeling I had won the discussion, I dropped him off and slept soundly that night. I only realized this morning, over two years later, staring at an ice cream lid in the trash, how incomplete and unhelpful my response was.
Instead of showing him how his presuppositions may have actually been wrong, I simply offered my opinion and said it was right. It was as if Paul walked up to the Athenian leaders on Mars Hill in Acts 17, pointed to their statue to an unnamed god, and said “that’s wrong. Jesus is right. Repent.” No, he meets them on their own philosophical turf and shows how what they believe actually – ultimately – points to Christ. So what would I say to Julian now?
I realized this morning that the problem here is what we lovingly call “humanism”. As is known, it’s the idea that “man is the measure of all things.” Sure, we all have this dream and desire for that which we call “world peace,” but our arrogance comes in our insistence that this “peace” comes from within ourselves – from within humanity. Well, actually, it’s not an outright insistence as much as it is an unquestioned assumption. What if “world peace” would not come from within humanity, but from without? What if Jesus did accomplish achieving perfect spiritual and temporal peace with God, man, and creation? What if this peace were sitting there, within our grasp – within our reach – if we would but take one moment to look outside of ourselves? What if the perseverance of all that is antithetical to peace comes not from outside of us (bio-socio-cultural-economic-historical-political systems and trends), but rather from within us (the total depravity and sinfulness of man that infects us all).
So, Peace has come. Peace has been accomplished and purchased by the only One not infected by that which takes away all our peace. We must simply accept this peace and live freely in it. Cease to “look in ourselves” to find the cure to all ills.
To non-Christians: you are like one with mud on their face and hands that keeps trying to wipe away the mud, but you only make it worse as you strive and try. Christ has taken all the uncleanness that you bear on Himself that you might not anymore. Repent from your love of this filth and believe Christ has the righteousness you seek.
To Christians: peace is yours! Trample not the blood of Christ underfoot as you release the cross from your gaze under the fear of unaccomplished peace. Trust that peace has come to the world, and it is not a political, economical, or philosophical system. It is a man named Jesus. Repent for your seeming need for some part of your peace to come from within yourself and believe that it has come from without. It is done. It is finished. Enter your master’s rest.
Thank God for Whirled Peace.
intelligent design–the new intellectual mccarthyism (intro)
For my term paper in RELG 362: Religion and Its Critics, I (as mentioned in an earlier post) am writing about the controversy over Iowa State University’s decision to deny tenure to Assistant Professor of Astronomy, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, who supports Intelligent Design. The paper will not (at least at the moment) come down on a particular side, but instead will discuss the relationship between intelligent design supporters, namely the Discovery Institute, and “modern” naturalistic science within academia.
Intelligent Design theory suggests that the biological aspects of life are too complex to have evolved randomly, but must have been produced by an unidentified (supernatural) intelligence. Contemporary Intelligent Design is an extension of the teleological argument for the existence of God, asserted by William Paley’ in his “watchmaker analogy” found in Natural Theology (1802).
The controversy–this potential “intellectual mccarthyism” (this is not my “official” stance on the situation, but an interesting statement that I have read recently)–does not merely stem from Dr. Gonzalez pro-ID stance, but also his expertise in his field of study, Astronomy. This would not be such an issue if Dr. Gonzalez was not so learned in the discipline. Dr. Gonzalez has the highest ranking among the entire I.S.U. faculty, according to the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS), which calculates the scientific impact of scientists in astronomy. The ranking system is devised on how much a scientist impacts other colleagues’ research. The more times a person’s papers are cited in other scientific articles or research, the more weight that person receives. The citation index is normalized so there is a greater weight placed on papers that have a single author as opposed to several. Based on 2001-2007 publications, Dr. Gonzalez received a 143 on the normalized index. The next closest I.S.U. professor staff has a score of 103, and the next best tenured astronomer scored 68.
The Discovery Institutes website quotes Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) saying, “In other words, Iowa State denied tenure to a scientist whose impact on his field during the past six years outstripped all of the university’s existing tenured astronomers according to a prestigious Smithsonian/NASA database.”
Gonzalez, who has written 68 peer-reviewed journals (53 more than the 15 required by his department to meet its standard of excellence in research) does not teach ID in class, however, and that it is purely outside research.
Well, I previously mentioned that I would not come down on a particular side, but it seems that I have–with substantial empirical evidence of his contribution to astronomy.
On June 1, 2007, Gregory Geoffroy, President of Iowa State University, rejected Gonzalez’s appeal and upheld the denial of tenure. In making this decision, Geoffroy states that he “specifically considered refereed publications, [Gonzalez's] level of success in attracting research funding and grants, the amount of telescope observing time he had been granted, the number of graduate students he had supervised, and most importantly, the overall evidence of future career promise in the field of astronomy” and that Gonzalez “simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy — one of our strongest academic programs.” Geoffroy noted, “Over the past 10 years, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the physics and astronomy department were not granted tenure.”Gonzalez appealed to the Iowa Board of Regents and the board affirmed the decision on February 7, 2008.
This should be an interesting situation to research.
[Contributed by Stephen Hess]
