Since the first edition of Rich Christians, Sider has revised the book several times as he learned more about economics, digested critical responses, and developed a more nuanced position. The Sider of today is very different of the Sider of thirty years ago, and while there still may be plenty to nitpick and disagree with, an Acton Institute review of his latest book shows a more complex position. One thing is certain, Sider still loves to ruffle feathers:
By acknowledging the relative but real good of wealth, Sider is able to incisively point out the dangers that necessarily flow out of affluence. Sider argues that the opportunity and responsibility that come with wealth have created a corresponding temptation, and “nurtured a practical materialism that has maximized individual choice. Desiring ever-growing sales to produce ever-greater profits, businesses discovered the power of seductive advertising.” He maintains that American Christians “must dethrone mammon and materialism in our hearts and congregations through a more faithful use of our money.”
Sider’s main adversary in this book is the licentious antinomianism of American evangelical Christianity. He writes, “Scandalous behavior is rapidly destroying American Christianity. By their daily activity, most ‘Christians’ regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate allegiance to money, sex, and self-fulfillment.” Sider’s call is to a rigorously faithful and pious Christianity, consistent in both theory and practice. As he argues, “We proudly trumpet our orthodox doctrine of Christ as true God and true man and then disobey his teaching.”
Certainly, as the review goes on to note, Sider takes a reactionary tone, focusing on the stereotypical "faith alone so leave me alone" fundamentalism that is popular in many circles. Certainly Sider should admonish those who would try to separate the Savior and Lord of Christ, but Christians should also be taken to task for trying to combine the Kingdom of God with the government/kingdom of man. Perhaps he does this elsewhere in the book, but Sider should respond to what has been the largest criticism to his previous works and the ideology of "progressive" Christianity in general:
The Bible does not allow the imposition of some sort of top-down bureaucratic tyranny in the name of Christ. The kingdom of God requires a bottom-up society. The bottom-up Christian society rests ultimately on the doctrine of self-government under God, with God's law as the publicly revealed standard of performance.
It is not possible to ramrod God's blessings from the top down, unless you are God.... Only humanists believe that man is God.
I like to be challenged, and Sider (and Campolo) are great and necessary voices, calling for believers to practice what they preach, and live a life more fitting of the Name by which Christians identify themselves. I have committed one of the worst blog atrocities possible by commenting on a book I haven't read, but I hope the basics of the book have been fairly represented. I do want to be clear in my personal position that Christians should practice what they preach through conscious use of free choice, not through a system of force. Christians choosing to work in community to right the wrongs of the world, help the poor, and heal the sick used to be called Church, and I am challenged and inspired by the hope that this concept of church can be reborn in hearts of Christians everywhere.
4 comments:
Justus,
I have a couple of questions possibly having nothing to do with your entry:
Do you believe that everyone should have access to the most fundamental of health care? What would you propose in order to ensure that the poor are being taken care of medically?
Professor,
Those are the million dollar question right now, aren't they? I have not made good on my intended health care posts, but I will try to outline the basics:
First, every one in this country does have access to fundamental health care. The problem is, many can't afford to pay the bill once they are stitched/healed up.
The reasons why many can't afford fundamental health care are numerous, but in my very humble opinion center around a few basic problems: 1) The removal of the price mechanism in health care leading to abuse, unwarranted demand 2) the structure/role/regulation/availability of health insurance, 3) Restricted supply 4) Inefficiency & Negligence 5)Legal Costs & Defensive medicine 6) Successful gov't lobbying
Many of the above items are government-created problems, so I do think there is a role for government to correct the underlying incentives/regulations/laws/programs that have created these issues.
I can go into specifics on the government corrections I endorse at a later time if you are truly interested, but even then it would be wishful thinking to assume that smarter government alone will fix the problem of affordability entirely. However, I feel very strongly that the federal government should not start another social war (poverty, education, against drugs, now sickness) it can not hope to win.
Recent programs in Maryland have shown that people can't afford to maintain government-provided health insurance for $40-60 a month (I wonder how many of those people have cable or a cell phone), so what is really affordable, other than free? And free doesn't exist in any government or free-market system. Someone has to pay.
The only answer is charity. Many doctors devote a portion of their practice to pro bono efforts, and perhaps many more would if they weren't fearful of litigation or regulation. Christianity (as well as other religions) have a long history of opening and operating hospitals, turning their houses of worship into clinics, and of providing assistance to the poor and sick, and perhaps that type of mission would increase dramatically if Christians didn't surrender God's work to government.
The great social deception of the 20th Century was that if individuals, small groups, churches, and communities could make the very positive differences for society that they had for centuries, then by golly big government could replicate that success on an exponential level. Unfortunately, it hasn't and doesn't work that way. Big government can't be run on charity. It collects funds by force, has no moral/spiritual core, operates on a level that destroys accountability and encourages fraud, and is run by power-hungry bureaucrats.
So there is no way to "ensure" affordable heath care "all." Even in the most socialized systems, people suffer or die waiting for care or are determined not worthy of the expense.
Thank you, Justus. That was quite insightful. No debate from me, I just wanted to see what your position was.
Wow Justus, very eloquently put.
About your post, I have just one thing to say about that:
It is about what He did, not what we do.
Post a Comment