The Gospel According to U2, Part Five
In my previous posts I have argued that a large portion of the "U2 worship service" (two of the songs and the talk) was not worship, biblically speaking. I now want to examine and question the talk further. The main gist of the message, as I've mentioned already, is that we should care for our neighbors by calling our congressmen and urging them to pass legislation to forgive debt to poor African countries. Stepping beyond the question about whether or not that's an appropriate message for a Christian worship service (which I answered in the negative in the previous post), the next question is whether the speaker at Live Oak Community Church (and Bono) are right about this issue. Should the United States forgive debt to poor African countries?
The main flaw in the talk is that it skips over several essential intermediate questions that must be answered before it reaches its conclusion. It is correct that we are taught in the Bible to love our neighbors, and we are also taught about our role as Christians in relation to the state. However, there is very little in the Bible that addresses this specific policy question. What does the Bible say about the purpose of government? What does the Bible teach about the relationships between one country and another? There is a little in the book of Proverbs that applies to this, but very little explicit instructions. Is it morally right for one country's government to forgive debt to another country's government, or is it morally indifferent or morally wrong?
If we are to assume a moral obligation to help these countries, just for the sake of argument, then we still need to address several pragmatic questions. The problem in all these countries is the poverty that many experience, so we need to find out to what extent the foreign debt causes that poverty. If we all take to heart what was said in the talk and call our congressmen and they forgive debt to these countries, will it actually make a difference to those who are experiencing that poverty? Are there other more important causes of poverty we need to address, such as lack of education or wars or corrupt governments or whatever? And if so, should we be doing something about those? Looking at examples from the Bible and from history, what "works" to raise the citizens of a country out of poverty? I don't know the answers to these questions. Perhaps Bono's example and message are right; perhaps they are not. WORLD addressed this question in an article last summer, and I've spoken about this topic with Gladman, my roommate from Zimbabwe, who also questions the effectiveness of debt relief as a solution to poverty.
But whether or not this is the right course of action, this is still an area where the Bible's teaching does not explicitly endorse one or the other course of action, and it is tantamount to putting words in God's mouth to claim that it does. It is also a very poor use of the parable of the good Samaritan, the text in Scripture referenced in the talk. The Samaritan didn't say, "Oh, look, there's a poor Jew over there that's been beaten up and robbed. Perhaps I should speak to the rulers of Samaria and see if they can forgive some debt to Judea. Then perhaps the Jews will have enough money so that they won't need to rob from each other, and stuff like this won't happen anymore." On the contrary, he personally helped the man who had been beaten and robbed. I'm also reminded of J. Gresham Machen's opinion regarding the Presbyterian Church's endorsement of Prohibition back in the day. It was reprinted in Modern Reformation a year or two back. Machen made it clear that he was no fan of drunkenness, and that it was a dangerous sin with serious societal effects. However, he believed the message that the church brings to the world should be the message of the Bible, no more and no less, and there is nothing in the Bible to advocate governmental prohibition of alcohol production and consumption. So regardless of his personal opinions on the question, the Presbyterian Church as a whole should neither encourage nor discourage Prohibition.
The main flaw in the talk is that it skips over several essential intermediate questions that must be answered before it reaches its conclusion. It is correct that we are taught in the Bible to love our neighbors, and we are also taught about our role as Christians in relation to the state. However, there is very little in the Bible that addresses this specific policy question. What does the Bible say about the purpose of government? What does the Bible teach about the relationships between one country and another? There is a little in the book of Proverbs that applies to this, but very little explicit instructions. Is it morally right for one country's government to forgive debt to another country's government, or is it morally indifferent or morally wrong?
If we are to assume a moral obligation to help these countries, just for the sake of argument, then we still need to address several pragmatic questions. The problem in all these countries is the poverty that many experience, so we need to find out to what extent the foreign debt causes that poverty. If we all take to heart what was said in the talk and call our congressmen and they forgive debt to these countries, will it actually make a difference to those who are experiencing that poverty? Are there other more important causes of poverty we need to address, such as lack of education or wars or corrupt governments or whatever? And if so, should we be doing something about those? Looking at examples from the Bible and from history, what "works" to raise the citizens of a country out of poverty? I don't know the answers to these questions. Perhaps Bono's example and message are right; perhaps they are not. WORLD addressed this question in an article last summer, and I've spoken about this topic with Gladman, my roommate from Zimbabwe, who also questions the effectiveness of debt relief as a solution to poverty.
But whether or not this is the right course of action, this is still an area where the Bible's teaching does not explicitly endorse one or the other course of action, and it is tantamount to putting words in God's mouth to claim that it does. It is also a very poor use of the parable of the good Samaritan, the text in Scripture referenced in the talk. The Samaritan didn't say, "Oh, look, there's a poor Jew over there that's been beaten up and robbed. Perhaps I should speak to the rulers of Samaria and see if they can forgive some debt to Judea. Then perhaps the Jews will have enough money so that they won't need to rob from each other, and stuff like this won't happen anymore." On the contrary, he personally helped the man who had been beaten and robbed. I'm also reminded of J. Gresham Machen's opinion regarding the Presbyterian Church's endorsement of Prohibition back in the day. It was reprinted in Modern Reformation a year or two back. Machen made it clear that he was no fan of drunkenness, and that it was a dangerous sin with serious societal effects. However, he believed the message that the church brings to the world should be the message of the Bible, no more and no less, and there is nothing in the Bible to advocate governmental prohibition of alcohol production and consumption. So regardless of his personal opinions on the question, the Presbyterian Church as a whole should neither encourage nor discourage Prohibition.
posted by fargonate | 10:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home