Having said that, our obligations may change somewhat in a democratic society. But even so, the mission of the church is first and above all to be the church — to preach, baptize, celebrate communion, perform good works, love one another, build fellowship, weep with those who weep, rejoice with those who rejoice, and so forth.

We may indeed find it necessary from time to time to become involved in political issues, and certainly will do so as individuals. But our primary mission will never be to reform the American government or to somehow try to make it holy. And that’s why we had better be very careful whenever we say that such-and-such position is *the* Christian one.

I think that the point of the original post was that McLaren was actively misleading other believers as to the meaning and likely cost of the portions of the current health-care proposals relevant to the provision of abortion, and that he was willing to do so because his judgement was that the successful incorporation of these proposals into the law of the state were worth these costs. In the words of my earlier post: “[H]e might judge that the intensification of state control of the provision of health care is a benefit so great that it outweighs the cost of widespread, active, and official legitimation of abortion, as well as the likely increase in and continuation of abortions which would result.”

This is our central disagreement, I would think. I judge that the intensification of state control of the provision of health care in this country is not a benefit, but rather a cost. Therefore its sucessful implementation cannot justify any further costs, emphatically including the legitimation, continuation, and expansion of abortion. Though not relevant to my original questions, my general argument is that no choice compelled or induced by true coercion or the threat thereof, by the state or otherwise, can ever truly be charitable. Coercion can only morally be employed to enforce the obligations of the natural law, and that means that the specific choices that would both (a) if made freely, be truly charitable, and (b) also be properly violently compelled by others if not made freely, are naturally very few and limited. Thus the state may not coerce a man into surrendering his property in order to give it to a doctor in exchange for his services in replacing the hip of a stranger in a different city. All else being equal, it would certainly be morally laudable if that man were to freely give his property for that purpose, but such a situation is essentially different.

In the interests of not being even more verbose than was my original post, I will refrain from further explication. I would suppose that Mark H. would take issue with the chain of reasoning in the preceding paragraph; so would St. Augustine, I imagine, at the distinction I imply between the whole “city of man” and the state as an institution within it, as well as various other points. So Mark H. is in good company, I will grant. I would ask him to consider, however, that opposition to the current proposed legislation may arise from morally serious reasoning, rather than mere hard-heartedness towards others, or slavish obedience to political “sides.”

But perhaps I misjudge Mark H. as being generally in favor of these proposals; parts of his arguments explain the reasons that believers should follow Jesus in their personal lives and not expend too much effort preventing correcting the injustices of the state, which will manifest in some way in any case. Here, too, he is in good company, not only that of many Christian fathers but of most of the Shi’a marja’iah who have not adopted Khomeinist radicalism. When they advocate such a course, we call it “quietism.” Myself, I would argue that it is an inappropriate reaction to prospective state immorality by believers who are, politically, citizens of a democratic republic.

No — but I think that was the point of the original post. Because Obama care allegedly will directly or indirectly fund abortion, we must work for its defeat. My point is that we also have the option of working for a bill that will not fund abortion.

No. But I think that was the point of the entire original post criticizing McLaren. In any event, that is one of the big issues here — Obamacare allegedly will directly or indirectly result in public funding of abortion, and therefore Christians should oppose it.

To which I say — no, we might just as easily oppose any form of Obamacare that includes public funding of abortion. Why haven’t people like James Dobson of Focus on the Family made that simple distinction? I fear the answer is because they are secretly beholden to the GOP first, and only secondarilly to the Church. Thus, they have no qualms with misusing the moral convictions of those whom they influence to try to defeat healthcare reform — not to serve Christ and his church, but their true masters in the GOP.

And to the extent this is their motivation, I think it is pretty disgusting.

Actually, I have no idea how to reconcile the above three propositions. In other words, I believe that Christ was sinless, but I find it difficult to understand how a sinless person living in that age might not have had (so far as we know) at least a few strong words to say about Caesar. But the Jesus of the Gospels seems more interested in the sins of religious leaders and those person who deign to follow him. Caesar no doubt committed many sins; yet it is to Peter (and his successors?) that he reserves harsh words like, “Get thee behind me Satan.”

My theory is that Christ was perfect because, living and thus participating in some sense in this sinful world, he did not hate the world. He did not try to reform it and make it perfect and demand that it be so. Satan tempted him in this manner; but he rebuked him. Instead, he showed more concern about the sin that was proximate — as in the parable of the Good Samaritan — rather than in the sin that was distant, such as the sin I would imagine we all agree occurred in the Roman games.

I think the Christian message would be strengthened if we in America took to heart this distinction. Yes, we should play a role in our republican government. But we should also recognize that — however much fame and glory and power this role might promise — it is very small indeed compared to what we do to the homeless man we encounter in the street, or the friend who calls when in existential crisis, or the spouse whom we do (or do not) show compassion to in our daily lives.

“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.”

“Rather, the question is, ‘Given a democratic republic in which representatives and other officials are to some degree responsive to public argument and opinion, should one advocate against an immoral action by the state before it is taken?’”

I agree! That was the point of my nod to Christian Republicans, when I suggested that they might play a much more helpful role in the debate over healthcare if they demanded that any healthcare reform passed did not fund abortion rather than simply opposing any plan on the grounds that some Democrats want it to fund abortions. Read the papers — none of the plans in either the House or the Senate is in final form. They are both fluid, and will continue to be so even when they are passed (if they are passed) and sent into reconciliation. Obama has endorsed this fluidity by suggesting that he would not be opposed to continuing the traditional ban on abortion funding through public federal funds.

If the only reason Christians oppose healthcare reform is for reasons related to abortion or apparent fears about euthanasis, then they should by all means bring those concerns to the table. Agreed. But simply suggesting that we cannot have any reform because we will, at some point, have to address these issues is sort of silly to me. Or rather, it would be silly if so many were not suffering due to their lack of access to healthcare.

And yes, if my original posts seemed somewhat flippant toward the pro-life cause as promulgated by many Christians, that’s because I think they tend to be not so much hypocritical as inconsistent. Jesus asked his disciplies to take up their crosses and follow him. He did not, so far as I know, instruct them to push for democratic reforms in the Roman Empire or use whatever means Jews might have had then to change Roman (or local Jewish) policies, as the zealots did. The only exceptions I can think of are those instances are (1) when he demanded purity within the “church” (as when he cleansed the temple) and (2) when he urged others to be more lenient towards sinners than the law would otherwise have urged. I can imagine Jesus saying about a woman who has had an abortion, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” And then to her: “Go and sin no more.” But I can also imagine him saying about certain pro-life Republicans, “You think by voting for George W. Bush you have served my cause. Depart from me, for I never knew you. Where were you when I was pregnant and needed healthcare to carry my baby to term? Where were you when my boyfriend was pressuring me to have sex with him and you were too busy applauding the fact that at least he was a real red-blooded American and not some homosexual?”

Maybe you understand what I’m trying to say? It’s better to try to be the Church — and to love it and reform it and make its mission central to our lives — than it is to try to be the best god-fearing, tax-paying American we can be?