This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on April 28, 2010
I was reading CS Lewis’s The Four Loves and came across the quote below. Obviously, Lewis is not specifically addressing universal health care or liberalism or the question of using the government to administer love. Even Christians can be found thinking that it is a noble expression of a loving society to have the government do the loving… and this with no apparent thought to the actual effect that this ‘loving’ will have on the people ‘loved’ and the attitude it fuels in the people-government doing the ‘loving.’ The most important thing seems to be that, well, people’s intentions are good, and it’s better to do something rather than nothing. Here is the quote:
This [is] Gift-love, but one that needs to give; therefore needs to be needed. But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves; we teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say “They need me no longer” shall be our reward. But the instinct, simply in its own nature, has no power to fulfil this law. The instinct desires the good of its object, but not simply; only the good it can itself give. A much higher love- a love which desires the good of the object as such, from whatever source that good comes- must step in and help or tame the instinct before it can make the abdication. And of course it often does. But where it does not, the ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this all the more ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as “unselfish.” (pgs 50-51)
Some discussion.
In the conversations I found myself in objecting to health care, I heard repeatedly how selfish I was being. In the comments on blog entries I saw the same thing. “If you really loved people you would support this bill. You’re just selfish. You just don’t want to pay taxes.”
I oppose universal health care, especially when put forward on secular grounds, precisely because I do love people. I do not believe it is in the best interest of most people in either the short term or long term. The Lewis quote above alludes to some reasons why. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on April 16, 2010
I am my child’s advocate; you aren’t.
I know my child. This child is mine. Mine to protect and mine to cherish.
You are quite convinced that Immunization X will not harm my child.
But then you send my child home. We live with the consequences. You don’t.
You say that only this few out of this many will have a reaction. This few is acceptable to you. You don’t take them home and live with them.
I may decide this few is too many because I know that if my child is part of the ‘few’ I am the one responsible.
It is my call. Back off. Show some respect.
I am my child’s advocate.
If I don’t advocate, who will?
If I won’t represent his and her best interests, who will?
My child is not a statistic. Behind ‘public health data’ are real people.
You take care of the numbers. I’ll take care of my people.
I am my child’s advocate. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on March 24, 2010
“the “right” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate morality. The “left” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate compassion. Both approaches fail miserably and are an abdication of our responsibility to be the voice, hands and feet of Jesus in this world.” – spoken by a friend.
Someone slid this article across my desk that inquires as to why evangelical Christians are against universal health care. Now, strictly speaking, I’m not an evangelical. Also, I don’t think that all Christians oppose universal health care, and I will not presume that Christians who do will share all my reasons. I hope this caveat spares me the litany of comments accusing me of ‘generalizing.’
I will take the article as my foil as it is one of the finest expressions of liberal hubris and arrogance that I’ve seen in a while. The author begins by indicating he seriously wanted to know why Christians who are supposed to be all about love would oppose health care. The end includes a long screed:
(p.s. this opinion is reserved for those Christians who have not actually thought about the consequences, and decided that more people are harmed than helped by the new law. They are being consistent with their beliefs. That being said, if you think you are in that camp of people excluded, you probably aren’t. You probably are just being geedy [sic], selfish and jerkish, but convincing yourself that this is why you oppose it, while the truth remains you just dont want taxed, or adhere to some abstract notion of how this bill is UnGodly).
Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on September 5, 2009
This essay is long- some 2,000 words. But I think it is worth reading. Print it out if you like if that makes it easier.
————————
‘Individualism’ has a bad rap, even among Christians. To be fair, there are things in ‘individualism’ that I think are unhealthy or even immoral, too, but the key thing to remember is that any opposite of ‘individualism’ is not necessarily preferable. If we’re going to raise up ‘inter-connectedness’ (a neutral term, I hope) it must be done thoughtfully, and it cannot obliterate that which is moral or good in ‘individualism.’
The only folks that I’ve ever heard defend ‘individualism’ are the Objectivists- the offspring of Ayn Rand, that spunky atheist who escaped the clutches of communism. Rand’s views on the individual seem to be expressed most succinctly, and passionately, in her little book Anthem
, which is a favorite of mine. There is a flaw in her book however: the intrinsic value of the individual is assumed; no basis for it is provided.
And no wonder. In atheism, no basis for the value of the individual human can be provided. At best, the individual human values himself, and then out of concern for his own interests forges a social compact with other individual humans not hurt him. That is secular humanism at its core. But this can only go so far. Once ‘social compacts’ are on the table, the ‘good of society’ becomes an obvious next step. “The most good for the most people.”
I won’t explore the inevitable progression from there (“Someone must decide what that good is”) and discuss the history of abuse that consistently emerged within these systems. These are not the point of this post, but you can find comments on it on this blog and the issue is discussed in my fictional book series, Birth Pangs.
The point, here, is that within secular humanism and atheistic systems, the only thing that lasts from one generation to the next is the State. Society and the State become the ‘highest’ level organism, and the individual a mere cell within it. From the point of view of the State, the individual has as much value as a skin cell which can be scraped off and safely discarded. Naturally, more valuable cells you want to keep around- while they have utility- but the ‘brain cells’ never lose sight of the fact that the cell’s value is strictly in what it can contribute to the ‘body.’ Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on July 3, 2009
About 1700 years ago, a certain Roman emperor by the name of Julian the Apostate reigned. He was called the ‘Apostate’ because of his fierce rejection of Christianity and his sometimes brutal attempt to repress it. Julian was smart. He knew that he could not just eradicate Christianity without dealing with the things that made it attractive. He complained:
Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. See their love-feasts, and their tables spread for the indigent. Such practice is common among them, and causes a contempt for our gods.
In response, Julian The Apostate launched government philanthropic programs in an attempt to render the Christian message impotent.
The astute Christian reader will already see where this is going. We must ask the question: “Do the numerous government programs aimed at ‘helping’ people actually serve to undermine the Christian faith?” Some might argue that that is too conspiratorial. Let us set aside the question of intent then and deal strictly with the question of effect. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on January 19, 2009
If terrorists and tyrants want Obama as president that is cause for concern to me. If I am a Christian who is operating on the belief that Obama reflects my values, the fact that secular humanists are thrilled is a warning sign. With no further comment, here you go:
I’m just saying.
Posted by Anthony on January 10, 2009
Yesterday I presented at an online conference. My topic was “Can Christianity Survive the Internet.” Or, otherwise titled, ‘The Death of Christianity.”
I will at some point obtain a simple mp3 of the presentation but in the meantime if you want to listen and observe the chat conversation you may listen via the archive link.
This morning I woke up to a follow up question. I thought I would answer it on my blog. Here was the question:
I often see two groups of people.
One is are involved in a tradition rich church with head knowledge of rules and dogma. In reality for them, God is not often real in their lives and their rules without empathy or transparency drives people away.
The second could be explained as people involved in a newly created, often emotion driven church, with little foundation or knowledge of how firm the foundation of the bible and the church is. When real questions come up, they topple.
Both are in danger of propagating a fragile view of Christianity to people they know and more importantly, their children.
How can the churches out there tackle these problems effectively.
I think both of these perceptions are valid. I have met Christian-turned-unbelievers from both categories in abundance.
How can the Church counteract these two extremes? Lord if I know! The problem for each is that they are utterly convinced in their own minds that their perspective is correct. Worse, proponents have another harmful attitude where they would prefer utter isolation to change and adaptation. I have met proponents in both camps- in this case, especially the traditionalist camp- who would go so far as to say that if their congregation shrinks, even to nothing, that is better then ‘compromise.’ In fact, it is not uncommon to hear them say that if their congregation atrophies, this is a sign that they are doing something right. And the surest sign that a church is compromising with the truth: if it is growing. This is not hypothetical. I can think of numerous instances.
(The meteoric rise of the Christian church in the book of Acts is apparently exempted from this reasoning)
So, I see your question touching on my first recommendation which was “Recognize there is a problem.” Proponents in both camps recognize there is a problem, all right: It’s with everyone else.
It should be evident what I think of these attitudes. Read the rest of the entry… »
