On approximately March 12
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that interprets the answer to the first question of the Heidelberg Catechism. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
I think that it is high time that we Reformed Christians revise, not erase, this statement from the Heidelberg Catechism. We should change the statement from what is our only comfort in life and death from what is our ultimate comfort in life and death.
Why is such a change needed? One reason is that to take the Heidelberg statement seriously, we perhaps have to deny the significance of the comforts that people bring us. And once we do that , we are in danger of becoming too inwardly bound and thus self-absorbed and perhaps calloused to what others must endure. In addition, we should not deny the plain truth that we are comforted by others. Such a psychological burden could be too great to bear for some. And we should note that Paul sometimes spoke of the comfort he received from those companions who ministered to him.
At the same time, we must be careful in how we receive comfort from others. Here, Romans 1 where Paul speaks against the human tendency to worship the creature rather than the creator. Thus, we must realize that though others are the immediate agents of comfort for us, especially our loved ones, God is the one who put them in our lives and enables them to comfort us.
While we live and while we pass away, hopefully we are not only focused on ourselves, but on others. And while focusing on others, we can be both comforted in their faith in God and/or disturbed for what might lie in their future. As the Heidelberg statement is written, again, a certain self-absorption is encouraged in that we can easily use it to say that I have my salvation and so I need not be concerned for others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 17
To Patrick Buchanan and his blogpost that interprets the closing of national borders because of the virus as an exhibit of human nature’s practice of every person for themselves ethic. In his article, he seems to regard that ethic as the way of the way of the world which should be celebrated. And his main concern of controlled borders is regardless of the effects of the pandemic. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
While Buchanan seems to celebrate this apparent 'every man for himself' ethic as being part of human and human nature itself, he seems to forget when such an ethic goes awry.
After all, when we look at the conjunction of American individualism with our 'sink or swim' neoliberal capitalism, we see people clearing the stores of hand sanitizers and needed products in order to sell them at exorbitant prices on websites. Aren't they following Buchanan's ethic especially when they are using the profits from those sales to support their families? Are those examples just a microcosm of the ever increasing wealth disparity, and consequently political disparity that results from our current form of Capitalism which is making many vulnerable to the harmful effects of the virus and/or the measures used to stop the virus? Or is not the person who refuses to self-quarantine themselves because they have to work to survive and support their family also following that motto? The question becomes, why can nations follow an ethic that it forbids its own citizens from following?
When we close borders in order to fight a plague, are we really following the everyone for themselves ethic or are we employing wisdom for everyone's benefit? The question itself does not provide enough information to say because we also need to look at what else we are doing. Are we ignoring the needs of the world as we take care of ourselves or are we also, in addition to closing borders, cooperating with the world in other ways? Answers to those questions would help us determine what ethic is being followed during the current pandemic.
If I remember correctly, Buchanan is Catholic. And surely he must know from the Scriptures that human nature is fallen in sin. And thus to celebrate a practice or ethic simply because it's human nature invites one to celebrate sin. We could also say the same for the way of the world.
While human nature and the way of the world works toward not having to care about others while taking care of oneself, we should note such a history of human nature and the way of the world does not give us a promising future when the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable because of technology or in a world with other plagues and hardships.
We should also remember that the Scriptures demand that we do set our affections on others and sometimes even at the cost of our own lives. Jesus praised the greatest love one could have when one gives their life for friends, such as what He did on the cross. The Apostles did that in order to spread the Gospel. First responders do that when police or firemen answer a call. We celebrate the sacrifice of our troops who do that for us. Is Buchanan suggesting that such caring for others should be a spectator sport? Is that what his Catholocism and/or conservatism have taught him? If so, then he rightfully invites the scorn of his behated liberals who seem to be more biblical than he is in terms of whom to love. And thus, he severely damages the reputation of his beloved conservatism and especially that of the Gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment