Jack, I knew you wouldn’t let me down.

Kent and Michael bring up too important terms “entitlement” and “moral obligation”.  Health issues are now couched in moral language and as a moral issue.  It is stated as an absolute truth that people must be given health care, whatever the definition of that is.  Michael asks the right question, why is it so?  It has also been shown over the years that when medical services don’t come with a cash cost, people over consume.  The emergency rooms in the US are now waiting areas that have fallen victim to this situation.

The other side of this is what is “health care” or health “insurance”?  You don’t have insurance again predictable events like vaccinations, annual check-ups, etc.  That is why it is called insurance.  It is for events that might possibly happen.  It is a way to manage risk, not cover all the usual day-to-day stuff.  You don’t collect on your house insurance when you want to paint the bedrooms.  When you add these certain events to an insurance policy, the exact cost (or greater) of all the events get added to the premium.  You lose the whole advantage of buying insurance.  So as long as all this stuff keeps getting covered, premiums will go up and up like people are talking about here.  The funny thing is, that some people want to fix the problem by providing more of the same sort of insurance.  It is strange idea.  I honestly think that emotional appeal alone gets this thinking a place in the public arena.  Bring out a kid and a single parent who are sick and can’t afford a doctor.  Then, if anyone disagrees with your plan, well they really just being mean to the kid.

A God that would taunt us with the promise of a complete salvation and then throw us into the flames for several thousand years of punishment for unconfessed mortal sins would not be worship-worthy. Such a God, who sends Jesus to tell the story of the Prodigal son and John 3:16, and then punishes us in flames for millenia is a liar.

Any number of other belief options are more tolerable. It’s simply monstrous.

There’s a reason the key text for this is in Maccabees. The entire book of Hebrews and the entire Gospel of John are vacated by the idea of Purgatory.

Joel, this isn’t much different from my reaction to the words of recreating the sacrifice on an altar in a church.

About the doctrine of purgatory, Michael said:

If it’s true, count me out.

That may be the most amazing statement I’ve ever read by you. Could you explain why, if you came to discover that the doctrine of purgatory is probably true, that you’d insist on not believing it? We have to believe lots of things that are implausible, that don’t fully make sense to us, but surely one reason we believe them is that in spite of the mystery or paradox, they’re true?

So Obama wants to pay for “health care” by taxing the rich? What a strikingly original idea. Why not make sure everyone has a wide-screen TV as well; The Rich can pay for it. Oh, and how about shiny new cars every three years. And beautiful wives. And smart children. We’ll let The Rich pay for everything since they are obviously the cause of all evil in the world.

(What bugs me most about this is that “The Rich” actually means “The Upper Middle Class”. The truly obscenely wealthy in this world – the Bushes, Kennedys, Rockefellers, Goldmans, DuPonts, DeBeers, Roosevelts etc – are the ones who orchestrate this never-ending nightmare whilst skating above it all, untouched by the suffering they foment and support. )

The sad irony of all this is that we will have “universal” healthcare in the not-too-distant future and it will cost us all a lot more, not less, than we are paying now. Furthermore, the quality of the care will be universally abysmal. The number of Americans providing care will plummet and be offset by foreigners, mostly from southeast Asia, eastern Europe and the Middle East. Rich people will still get better healthcare because they will pay for it anyway. How do I know this? Because that’s the state of healthcare in England and we are rushing pell-mell in the same direction.

Paternalistic socialism is the wave of the future. It will suck. We will all be worse-off than we are now, but at least we’ll have “universal healthcare”. The poverty pimps will still complain because rich people will still get better care – just like they get better manicures, better hairdos, better car washes and better shoe shines: BECAUSE THEY WILL PAY FOR IT – and will agitate for the politicians to continue punishing success and continue subsidizing failure.

It is so depressing and so predictable. We may as well decide to enjoy it because there is no escaping it. Personally, I plan to get disgustingly wealthy so that when I need good medical care, (as opposed to “free” medical care), I can actually get it because I will be able to pay for it.

The stupidity of the general population simply staggers me sometimes.

Health Insurance at OBI has increased 20-40% every year of the past 5. It is our largest single expense. It is more than 20% of our total budget. The insurance situation is truly dire, but I still cannot philosophically find a way to justify the notion that either the employer or the government are morally obligated to pay our costs. I see how all us on our staff use our insurance benefit, and there is a discussion there that needs to go on as well.

Tom, our health plan costs increased 21% this year and now represents upwards of 16% of my employer’s cost of employing me.  If you’d like to test whether you view health insurance as an entitlement I’d suggest you toy around with this question:  If you suddenly found that you made an extra $5,100 per year (the cost of my health insurance), but had no insurance, what would you spend that money on?

Personally I’ve chosen to migrate to a combination plan; a plan that includes an HSA (Health Savings Account) and a high deductable insurance plan; I know that some coworkers feel that this migration is a ‘gutting’ of their health insurance, but I also know that for our agency to maintain solvency we need to cut some of these costs.  A major problem with the medical industry is that sense of entitlement…we are poor consumers when someone else foots the bill.

I believe that movements toward increased involvement and responsibility on the part of medical consumers are positive…our medical system is often over-accessed, patients are often over-prescribed and the lack of fiscal accountability creates terrible abuses.

Turning the patient back into a consumer may be one of the best moves we can make.

Noel H picks up some of my latest IM rant. Check out his new series on Jesus and the Law at Riverview.

Coffee Cup Apologetics 8 is now online. “Won’t any religion get you to heaven as long as you sincerely follow its beliefs and teachings?”

There is nothing I am more grateful for than my health insurance, but why is my employer obligated to pay for any of my health insurance any more than they are obligated to pay for my food or housing? (Which mine does :-)

Work for a company that has basically gutted their insurance plan, like mine has, to the point where I can’t afford my medication now, and you might feel a little different.

Amen, Kent. I’ve stated here before that I am for the most part “conservative” politically. (emerging? conservative? tries to reconcile respect for Lutheran theology with Anglicans and Free Church? what a bundle of contradictions he is!) Still, I try to balance that with a respect for the idea of caring for the less fortunate. But whenever I hear those on the “left” trot out their take from the rich and give to the poor socialism in disguise, my eyes glaze over. I’ve become quite the cynic in recent years when it comes to politics. To my observation, both right and left care for little more than increasing their own power, and damn the consequences. Poop on the lot of them, I say.

Jason, and what also sucks is that the definition of ‘rich’ is ‘those who make between $25-100K/year’. Our ‘insurance package’ as we move forward in adoption comprises 48% of my gross income.

All, are there any C.S. Lewis scholars out there who know whether purgatory was something that he believed or simply something that he wrote about in The Great Divorce? I totally connect with your assessment Michael; and am not trying to defend Lewis, I’m simply curious.

MOD: He believed it, and offered considerable explanation for it. I have a lot of Lewis reference books and could list them, but I’m lazy.

AUTHOR: Thanks for the lazy answer to my lazy question ;-}

The word of the day is “poopslide”

TallSkinnyKiwi posted his review of John MacArthur’s “Truth War” this morning. It seems that those of us who find something of value in the emerging church conversation are heretics, and comparable to skid marks. (insert boyish giggle at scatalogical references here)

With a little bit of humor, Andrew looks at the various accusations leveled against our emerging brethren and shows the arguments for the silliness that they are.

I know many of you don’t really care about the whole emerging “controversy,” but this is another good article to use as a starting point in defense of Christian brothers and sisters who, while flawed like everyone else, are being faithful to Christ as they know how.

Listening to a Catholic Answers bit on purgatory, this is the scripture used.

Matthew 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

So, of course, sins are forgiven after death.

crickets

Find me a New Testament scholar who actually believes the phrase “age to come” means “after death, in purgatory.” N.T. Wright, your phone is ringing.

Great sermon, Brian.  You said,

As surely as bread and wine nourish our physical bodies, it is only the flesh and blood and Jesus, of which we partake by believing in him and having a part in his sacrifice that nourishes us spiritually.

So Mr. Obama wants to try something new and exciting, like …

Tax “rich” people and use the cash to pay for poor people.

Yawn. I expect better from younger up-and-comers than that. 40+ year old rhetoric don’t cut it, son.

Some of my thoughts on Luke 8:19-56.  The focus is on the question of ‘Who is Jesus?’ in relation to the Lord’s Supper.

Obama rolls out some ideas on healthcare. I am waiting for Jack to give his hearty approval :)

From BBC: Christian Converts in Malaysia face a difficult life and they are facing some high-profile legal battles .

I dunno about you, but if I were a young boy, I might tell the priest I believed in purgatory if he gave me some more of these hawt holy cards.

Michael: My belief in purgatory is at times the only thing that makes sense of this present life.

Kletos: prayed for Boniface.

Matthew: I saw that blog somewhere before, and I agree, hilarious.

The wife and I were involved in a very minor rear-end collision today, but since she is 38 weeks pregnant, she opted to be taken to the hospital. Since she has a blood condition, her doctor decided to do an amniocentesis tomorrow morning and deliver our son if his lungs are developed. So, tomorrow, Lord willing, I get to hold my son, Jack. My nomination for a middle name is Boniface since St. Boniface’s feast day is next Tuesday (two days before he would have been delivered if not for today’s circumstances). I think my wife has officially vetoed unless she has a moment while on the drugs tomorrow. How cool to have a son named after the guy who said, “So, Thor would be pretty pissed off if I, maybe, hacked down his favorite oak, right?”

MOD: Prayed for you.

What a fantastic blog.  It’s like post secret for a**holes.

On a related note, cat-poo coffee is all the rage in Australia. Can we get a picture of our renowned Aussie (Oi!) theo-bloggers imbibing this treat?

No disrespect to CS Lewis and others who believe it, but purgatory must be the most obnoxious belief I can imagine. The idea of spending my life on the Gospel of Christ’s perfect mediation, atonement and justification….and then spending 10,000 years in flaming punishment (i.e. “purification.”) Christ’s holiness is insufficiently given to the Christian to avoid this? And once you’re in it, Christians can pray and that will help? Gee…what a God.

If it’s true, count me out. What an amazing doctrine. How can you possibly believe it and face death with anything but horror, knowing you are headed for conscious punishment and not the Father’s House?

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. 606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: 607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. 608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. 610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them. 611

Uh…isn’t that what the reformation was all about? How can you know your catechism say that and just say, wide eyed, that we all believe the same things?

>If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation?

The New Covenant maybe? Sufficient work of Jesus? No sinner can offer any sacrifice that forgives another’s sins. Job’s sacrifices were pictures/previews of Jesus.

Toastmaster’s: the Sequel. Hedges debates Christopher Hitchens at Berkeley. Hedges’ moralistic religiosity stands no chance against Hitchens’ analytic clarity. (h/t Macht)

Timmy Brister has written a detailed chronology of the Calvinistic Controversy in the SBC. (pdf warning.) He leaves out a large amount of the early history of things, particularly the connection of the Founder’s Movement to men in the Reformed Baptist movement and the Sovereign Grace movements, but as far as recent controversy goes, it’s a comprehensive resource.

Have you all seen this yet?

It seems the author has really submitted it as a resolution.  The comments are fun, especially the reply to Volfan.

Byron provides a TOC for his “Would Jesus Vote Green?” series.

Clay passed his driver’s license exam. Congratulations, Clay!

Monday Morning Insight summarizes the case against Chuck Swindoll:

Among the bad words Chuck has used since 2000 (yes, they’ve been keeping a tally for 7 years now): buns, heck, crap, balls, and also for mentioning (and encouraging the viewing of) the Lion King.

You’ve probably often wondered what it would be like if philosophers talked about canonicity. “Gee,” you thought, “would they convert to the RCC?” Well, wonder no more. Check out the discussion by some analytic colleagues over at Prosblogion. Tim, iirc, is with Alex at the Golden Dome.

In 1994, while I was waiting for my current church to decide if they wanted me, I worked for about six months as the administrative assistant for a capital campaign at an ELCA camp.  It was here I learned how to talk with liberals.  My boss was then in his 60s, a classic liberal, but a great guy who I learned to love.  By the time our relationship ended we had come to the hard wrought conclusion that the resurrection, if nothing else, was important.

I also remember paging through some denominational magazines, and there I learned that even liberals will don golf shirts and stand behind plexiglass pulpits if it helps attendance.

Mark, the only experience I have with the ELCA (tangentially) is that my parents attend what used to be one, and is now a Word Alone church. Their services have always been more like a typical evangelical church. Other than that, I went to a Tae Kwon Do tournament that was held at an ELCA school (Augsburg college in Minneapolis).

Honestly, though, I’m sure there are some good ones out there, struggling through the denominations foibles, much like The Episcopal Church. I know of at least one seminary student who is choosing to remain with the ELCA to fight the good fight, and I hope the wheels of denominational politics don’t grind him to a pulp. The same arguments have been leveled at Methodists, too, and I’ve known plenty of them who work hard and preach the gospel.

There must be a lurker or two with a good example…

Just wondering.  I always really appreciate the services at my parents’ ELCA church and also the ones at the church where our kids go to school.  I know the denomination has issues, but the services were solid and Gospel-centered.

Just in case you haven’t seen this, Kim Fabricius on why baseball is God’s game

1 Corinthians 14:35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. NAS (Update)

I have to admit to having a real irritation at Christians who say they believe a “Biblical” position, and judge others by that example of “faithfulness” to the Bible, but when you do your homework, they are actually “fudging” on the Biblical position so they can accommodate their own evangelical subculture’s way of interpreting the passage.

We did this with the “head coverings” discussion, but the verse above is the best one.

I Corinthians 14 has more different words for various kinds of speaking and verbal participation than any other chapter in the New Testament. Paul knew what he wanted to say and he knew what word he wanted to use. And the word he wanted to use was “speak,” not preach.

It’s a shameful thing for a woman to speak in gathered worship. If you want to turn that into “speak as a preacher,” help yourself, but it’s clearly not what he means because the example immediately preceding was asking questions!

We have a group of Baptists that come to our campus every year from the far western part of our state. Their churches don’t allow women to speak in church. Ever. No announcements. No mission reports. No testimonies. No intros to songs. No participation in business meetings. No questions. No speaking at all.

This particular group of Baptists, like the head-covered Mennonites I mentioned in the earlier discussion, have the courage to interpret these passages literally and carefully, rather than accomodate their interpretation to some version of evangelical modernity.

I bring this up because Acts 2:18 says that your women will prophesy, but Paul wouldn’t allow it. If God said it would happen, but Paul wouldn’t allow it, was he fully implementing what the Spirit made possible, or was he also accommodating to culture, as he did with the circumcision of some of his associates and his own vows?

I think if you visited the average complementarian church, you wouldn’t see either one of these verses being implemented. You would see something in the middle.

Now that you are irritated at me, cheer up with this cartoon. (HT to Bill Kinnon)