Chris Witmer’s recent comment on my “Palin-Drones” article deserves examination — not just because I think it’s wrong, but because it’s a passionate paean to the idol of “Biblical literalism,” an approach to Scripture that promises “never to be embarrassed by any word of Scripture” but unfailingly ends up as an embarrassment both to the interpreter and the Church. His is a perfect example of an argument that relies on a strict, literal, and seemingly Biblical foundation — I mean, the words are right there in black and white (or red) — and yet manages to result in practice that is entirely un-Christian, un-Biblical, and unfaithful to the message of Christ.
Here’s what Chris says:
“Pointing out the problems in Obamacare is not difficult, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are capable of understanding, let alone actually implementing, the only solution that would really work over the long haul, which would necessarily include 1) repenting before the Triune God for our sins, and 2) the elimination of all government welfare programs and the complete return of such functions to the family and to the church, to which they rightly belong.” Chris Witmer, comment on “Palin-Drones,” Prevailing Winds, September 10, 2009
And here’s my short answer: Where does the unchurched clerk at Dollar Tree, raising kids on $9 an hour, go when she’s diagnosed with cancer and her family is far away, broke, and her ex isn’t paying child support?
If “government welfare programs” are abolished, is a lingering, painful death the penalty for not being a member of a church in Witmer’s Reconstructionist heaven-on-earth?
If you think the question is tough, consider the answer. I’ll explain in my next post.
The question you pose – “Where does the unchurched clerk go?” – has a very easy answer. She goes to whichever charitable organization is ready to take her. If it is the Body of Christ – so be it. If it is the Taliban – so be it. If it is the Communist International – so be it.
But I suspect she would go to the Body of Christ – the others would exact a price very few are willing to pay.
But the most important thing is that when she goes to any of these places she will go as a supplicant. The service she gets will not be her due – but an accomodation. THAT is a very important difference.
Comment by Ashwin — September 16, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Mrs. Mix’s argument is a variant of the “But would you let people starve?” question. Readers are given the impression that not only I but the GREAT MAJORITY of Christians would be content to let people starve, so that if all government welfare programs were ended NOBODY would step in to fill the gap. Nobody, that is, save Mrs. Mix and people like her, who consider it an appropriate manifestation of Christian love and virtue to have the State hold a gun to everyone’s heads and say, “You foot the bill for this woman’s cancer treatment or we’ll blow your brains out.”
That question is the standard last-ditch response by someone who has heard the well-reasoned arguments that government welfare financed by taxation increases the number of poor people, increases welfare recipients’ dependence on the state, reduces society’s productivity and therefore its wealth, creates resentment among people who bear the burden of taxes hardest, continues to perpetually expand despite the failure of the programs, and actually benefits mostly welfare bureaucrats rather than the people ostensibly to be aided. The so-called “Christian Reconstructionist” is not the one who causes these things to happen; they are a consequence of violating God’s law — just as surely as hitting the pavement is a consequence of jumping out a window. But that does not stop Mrs. Mix from portraying someone like me as callous for being the bearer of unpleasant truths. I and Christians of like mind are presented as heartless and unconcerned about the poor.
I wouldn’t let people starve or go without medical treatment, as far as it lies with me to prevent it. I want to strike at the root of the problem while avoiding the ditch of “liberal” humanism. To do this we must face squarely the complete failure of all forms of government welfare, from education to health care to bailouts of Wall Street. I also want to avoid falling into the ditch of “conservative” humanism by embracing true Christian compassion and justice.
The hypothetical unchurched clerk is getting a lesson in God’s covenantal faithfulness. Hallelujah! Of course, hers is the position of ALL of us outside of Christ. We ALL need the saving work of the Good Samaritan. And we are all called to imitate the Good Samaritan ourselves.
The health care problem is a subset of the poverty problem. The biblical approach to curing the problem of poverty has ultimate roots in the biblical approach to curing the reality of Hell. The solution to the problem of Hell is faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ. This is also the solution to all the problems of poverty.
Only God can truly heal us. But men who are in rebellion against God do not want to hear this message. They want healing, but only on their terms, not on God’s. Unwilling to become humble before God, they seek salvation from the State — the self-proclaimed healer of our age. The idol of the State as savior is in the process of failing. Hallelujah!
They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?
In every country with socialized medicine, the state of veterinary care is far superior to human medical care (e.g., no “death panels,” no waiting lists, lower prices for comparable goods and services, and far greater freedom to choose from among any and all available treatments). If only humans could have access to the same freedoms granted to animals! If such freedoms were allowed, the free market would provide far better solutions than what is possible under the current system of socialized medicine (let alone what Obama would impose on us). If taxes remained under the control of the individual taxpayers, the people as a whole would have both the responsibility and the means to take care of society’s welfare needs — assuming of course that Christians were willing to actually act like Christians.
Comment by Christopher Witmer — September 16, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Chris, I believe that the root cause of poverty in America is injustice — systemic, widespread, fundamental injustice and inequality. Yes, some poor people are lazy, and their lives reflect it. But to use Proverbs that describe, generally, life in a pre-industrial, agrarian society to condemn poor people in 21st-century U.S. is an example of both an abuse of Scripture and a callous perspective on what is really happening with people.
And Ashwin, I think that poor people bear enough shame and humiliation in their circumstances that it’s unnecessary to remind them, or us, that they receive non-government help as supplicants. In fact, it belies a fundamental contempt for those less fortunate that you maybe don’t exhibit, but too many of my readers do.
Keely
Comment by Keely Emerine Mix — September 18, 2009 @ 4:29 pm