Transcription
[Music] I've been asked to say some things, uh, from a Christian perspective about, uh, social justice and related issues that are going on in our culture today. Now, this is a very, very delicate topic, and it is very hard to have a civil conversation, uh, on this, uh, because people are so emotionally heated or, uh, wrapped up, and understandably so, on whatever side of this issue that they, that they find themselves. Uh, so, I, I want to be, I want to be wise in approaching this. But the only thing I can ask you to do is to be open enough to listen to what I have to say, and maybe we could consider this as just an older brother sharing his, his own reflections with you in an attempt to be helpful.
Now, you will quite likely, maybe agree or disagree with some of the things I say, and, and I am perfectly comfortable with that. I understand that people of goodwill can, can have differences, uh, on these matters. And, uh, so, uh, let's feel comfortable with that. But please give me a hearing, and I'm gonna do the best I can to explain, uh, as a seasoned Christian thinker, um, how I view all of this, and hopefully that will give you something to think about as you're continuing to formulate your own views.
Now, I would say to you, as a Christian, you want to do your best to try to think biblically and carefully about where you come down. And, and don't allow your emotions to override your attempt to think biblically. We all have blinders, including me, but at least give it your best shot, and maybe some of the things I say will be of help to you.
Now, I, we, I want to start by just acknowledging that, um, there's no question that we have a problem of race, uh, in America that, that needs to be dealt with, and it is becoming more visible and evident. And I think that this is a good time for the church to be involved in a very, in a biblically sort of way, in trying to contribute to spotting and weighing in against injustice, uh, where we see it. Uh, this is a, a good time for us to go back to the drawing board and, uh, try to think more carefully about, uh, the way police are trained, and, uh, and a host of other things. But there's no doubt that we have a difficulty, and that people are clashing over how, how they perceive this.
So, uh, with that said, my, my basic thesis here is going to be that the contemporary movement on behalf of diversity, social justice, and white privilege is not something that a Christian should accept. Instead, a Christian should advocate for what I'll call biblical justice, which, which will overlap with, with, uh, DSW, diversity, social justice, white privilege movement in some ways and differ in other ways. And so, I don't like to talk about social justice. I like to talk about biblical justice. So, I'm going to try to explain what DSW is, the current social justice movement that we find in the culture, uh, and the concept of diversity and, and white privilege that's embedded in that, and, uh, give you, uh, why I don't think that this is a biblical or a reasonable approach to these issues. And I actually think that if we approach these issues by way of this ideology, it's going to make the problem worse, and it's going to harm the very people that need help and, and, and need representation and need us to be on board, uh, with.
So that said, I'm going to begin by, by talking about the contemporary DSW, uh, ideology that's in Western culture. Remember, that's diversity, social justice, and white privilege movement. And after I've done that and given and evaluated it, I'll say a little bit about, uh, a biblical approach to, uh, government and the state, and maybe some things that follow from that for the church.
So, what, what exactly is the contemporary DSW movement that we see and hear about in, in on, on the news and so on? Well, number one, it is, it is an expression of the worldview of neo-Marxism. It is an expression of neo-Marxism. Now, what, what does that mean? Well, I had, I studied Marx in my doctoral program and classic Marxism, and I won't tease everything I know about it out because it's not relevant for right now. But basically, classic Marxism saw the fundamental problem of the human situation as a struggle between two classes of people: the, uh, bourgeoisie, which are the wealthy, uh, people who own and control the, the methods and means of producing goods and services in society, so they have a way to get wealthy because they're in control of the methods of production. Then there's the proletariat, which would be the working class, and, uh, they're in constant conflict with one another, and the movement of history is moving towards the establishment of a classless society where, uh, social outcomes, uh, of equality of result, where, uh, everyone ends up having an equal amount of goods and services, uh, is the ultimate goal of a classless society.
Now, the problem with Marxism was that it did not work in applying it to the United States, and that's because the United States had a huge middle class that did not fit neatly into Marx's twofold category. And so, it was very hard to get any significant generation of interest in adopting Marxism in America because it didn't seem to fit most people's lives because they did not see themselves in either group. As a result of that, in the 1920s, an Italian philosopher named Antonio Gramsci developed what is what he called and is now called neo-Marxism. Now, it's still Marxism in that it sees the fundamental problem of the human condition as one of class warfare. But it's neo, it is a new version of Marxism in that it does not see the class warfare being over, uh, economic control of the means and methods of production. So the classes are not just the rich and the poor, but rather, uh, according to Gramsci, the, the, the classes would be the dominant group that is composed of victimizers and the dominated group that is, that is composed of victims. And the, the struggle is not for economic equality, but the struggle is over power. Uh, so that, uh, those who dominate, uh, and control the, the victims will eventually be, uh, become the victims themselves and will be victimized by those who are now the victims. So the struggle then becomes one of victim and victimizer rather than, uh, fundamentally about economics.
Now, the, the difficulty here, as a Christian, is that according to a Christian understanding, uh, the fundamental problem of the human condition, uh, is not, uh, who has power and who doesn't. Uh, it is actually the, an issue of the fallen nature of human beings that can be manifest in systemic evils, as we'll see shortly. But, but Christianity would say that the, the fundamental need is, is spiritual and ethical and transformative in nature rather than about power. You, you will recall that the early church was not in any position of having any power at all. Rome was in charge, period. And in, in Judea, where Jesus did most of his work, and in Galilee, in the surrounding area, um, the, the, the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the, and, and Jewish leaders, Herod, uh, had a certain amount of, uh, power as well. And so, it was not as though the church was attempting to overthrow the power structures. It's one of the reasons that it did not take on slavery head-on. What, what Jesus and Paul did was to provide teachings that would subversively undermine slavery and make it such that nobody would want to be a part of anything like that. Now, I, I recognize that human nature can resist that, but, but it was a real sly thing for, for Jesus and the apostles to do to get more to the root. But you see, the point is that the diagnosis that they provided was the way human beings treat each other and their, their lack of neighbor love or an ability of how to do that. And so, uh, the, the, the Christian will, will tend to emphasize the, uh, the, the spiritual warfare and the, uh, the issue of sin and virtue and, uh, that sort of thing, good and evil, rather than it being about power struggle.
Now, uh, the, the DSW movement, number two, has at its very core the, the facilitation of conflict, uh, in, in the search for gaining power. And so, division, uh, uh, moving into a society and breaking people into different groups and have them be in tension with other groups is at the very center of a neo-Marxist strategy for bringing about a cultural revolution. And so, fostering division is actually at the very heart of a neo-Marxist DSW movement. And that's what we see today. Is there is an attempt to have different social groups, uh, depict each other in a very, very, uh, uh, overly stated, generalized way that fosters, uh, hatred and division. And this would especially be the case as it is directed toward of the dominant group. And so, it will turn out, according to this view, that only those in the dominant group are capable of racism. And the reason for that is that in Christianity, racism would be defined in terms of an attitude of the heart and actions that flow out of that attitude. So, it would be the, uh, the looking at another person in a demeaning and a devaluing way solely because they were a member of a certain ethnic group, and then using access to power to, to do that to enforce those feelings. But it's primarily about the inner, the attitude and the inner heart. Whereas for, uh, the DSW movement, uh, racism cannot be present without the power to dominate. And so, that's why, uh, people of color that are not part of the dominant white group are not capable of racism because they are not in a position to use their access to power to dominate the white community. And so, what you have is conflict, and the idea that any means is justified if it helps the victims gain access to power and to wield that over the current victimizers.
Now, Christianity doesn't hold that the end justifies the means. There are right and wrong ways to accomplish something, even if the end that you're trying to accomplish is a good one. According to Christian faith, there are appropriate ways to go about that, and there are evil or inappropriate ways to go about that. So, the end does not justify the means, uh, in a utilitarian kind of way. Moreover, a Christian worldview is an, it seeks to bring about unity rather than conflict. Now, whether we've been good at that or not, uh, is another question. Although I would, I would challenge, uh, you to, to look at any other movement that's been around for like 2,000 years who's done a better job of facing up to its own internal teachings than the Christian community. But the Christian community is filled with sinners, uh, and so we don't live up to our standards. But, but what we're talking about here is primarily what these two systems of thought hold forth that we're to strive toward. And, uh, the Christian idea is to bring people together and to build unity.
Now, something that's very interesting about this, uh, is, uh, how this idea of unity versus division relates to, uh, what is sometimes called, um, identity politics or group identity. Now, this would be number three, a group or identity or identity politics. Now, on this view, the DSW movement says that you are fundamentally a member of a group. You're not an individual, but you, it is you are to see yourself in light of your victim, victimized group or your, uh, victimizer group. And so, for example, a black person should understand himself or herself as as part of the, of the black ethnicity rather than as an individual, uh, who happens to be black but might differ from other blacks on on various things. And so, you try to get group conformity, and your identity is fundamentally your, your position in the relevant victimized group. And so, there is a gender identity, there is, uh, uh, there is gay identity, there is, uh, a black identity, brown, and white. And so, any, any group that, especially a victim group, is primarily a, a member of that group. And what unifies the group is their status as victims, according to what their group is, black or, or gay, or whatever it might be.
Now, um, what this tends to do then is that it fails to recognize the, the absolute centrality of individual responsibility. And it is very easy for this emphasis to create an, an overstated victim mentality. This is not to say that certain groups, like the black community, has not been, uh, treated as second-class citizens, uh, in, in ways that would, would be horrible to any, any clear-thinking Christian. But still, what are you going to do about it? And what the, what the church, the biblical teaching would say would be that you have to take responsibility for your own actions and your own life as a partner with God and as a part of the Christian community. You notice that in the, in the church, there really is to be no Jew or Gentile, or male or female, or anything of that sort, except there are, I think, different gender roles in the church. That, but, but those are, they're of equal value and so on. But irrespective of that, we're our primary identity is that we're disciples of the Lord Jesus. That's who we are, and everything else is flows out of that. I am a Christian. I am a philosopher. I am a Christian philosopher. I'm not a philosopher who happens to be a Christian. So, uh, there are white Christians and black Christians, but there aren't blacks who happen to be Christians or whites who happen to be. We are to see our sense of self as fundamentally in our, our yokedness with Jesus and his kingdom. That's how we are to learn to view ourselves, and that's a struggle because our culture tells us to see ourselves in a different way.
Another issue, uh, with the DSW movement is that evil is primarily, uh, and almost entirely in some circles, uh, a group issue and a systemic issue. And so, the DSW movement will, will look at evils in a society as involving, uh, the, the social and legal and political and economic structures of that society. And, uh, evil will accrue to people insofar as they belong to the victimizer group. And so, a person is evil insofar as they're white, and, and people that are part of victim groups are not. They are, their innocent victims, uh, by and large. And so, this, this is a way of thinking about group evil, and rather than individual goodness or badness. And it, it locates, uh, the, the source of, of our problem in systemic evil, in systemic racism.
Now, the Christian view is, it would accept some of this, but it would differ. Certainly, according to Christianity, your good or badness is not a function of the group to which you belong. Whether you're black or white, you're not inherently good or bad because of that. You're good or bad because of the way you conduct your own life and, and how you're striving to grow in your character and in Christ likeness, and so on. But that's an individual evaluation. It's not something that accrues to you because of your group. Now, there, the Christian worldview would say that there is systemic evil. That there are structures in society that do, uh, have evil and, uh, are can be oppressive. And so, for a Christian social ethic, we address both the individual, and we are to be planting churches as the little beacons of light that are different than are counter-cultural. And we are to focus on individual evil, but we also are to address systemic structural evil, and that is important too. Though the fundamental problem would be individual evil, there would be a role played. So, it's a matter of emphasis and a perspective on this.
Next, uh, the DSW movement most often, though not always, adopts a postmodern worldview. Now, like I said, uh, not everybody who's a DSW advocate, and I'm speaking more about people who are in the know about what the DSW movement stands for. I think, I think if I may say so, I think the average person who's protesting it isn't expressing these things. They're, they're primarily just trying to make a difference, whether they're right or wrong is not my issue. But, but, uh, this is what the view is. And when it's combined, as it almost always is, with postmodernism, postmodernism is essentially, though there are different versions, it's essentially the view that truth, reality, and value are relative to your group. So, there is no such thing as truth or reality or right and wrong for everybody. No metanarratives, is the way it's put. There are only truths and reality and so on relative to one group, and it will be different than truth and reality relative to another group. So, this is not individual relativism, but it's group relativism. And your, your group will construct reality according to its own values and standards.
Now, at this point, this is where, uh, well, you can see then that this would be a facilitate clash because different groups literally live in different realities. There's no common ground between them. So, that the only way that you can get what you're seeking is through power and shouting, uh, because, uh, since you construct reality different than in your, this other group, you don't have something in common like reality, uh, to base reasoning and argument, because you live in different realities, literally.
Now, this is where we get the idea of what's called intersectionality. Now, intersectionality says that some individuals are a part of more than one victim group at the same time, and thus their different victim group membership intersect in defining who they are. So, uh, uh, let's consider a, a, a black woman who is black, she's a woman, uh, suppose she's, she's homosexual, she's, uh, lesbian, and so she's a part of three oppressed groups. Compare her to, let's say, a white woman who is a part of one victim group, being a woman, but would be heterosexual. And so, there would be no intersectionality in her case, but there would for the black woman because three oppressed groups would all intersect together and define her situation. So, you can rank order the degree to which people are victimized by how many groups they intersect with that are a part of different victim groups. So, that would be what's called intersectionality, and it's relevant to, to postmodernism.
Now, uh, number, number six, the DSW movement also, uh, incorporates, uh, often, not always, but certainly often, and this is, uh, very often true on the university campus, what's called critical race theory. Now, critical race theory is, uh, primarily, uh, composed of four fundamental ideas. Um, and we've already repeated some of these, but, but the first one is that human relationships are all about power dynamics. Power dynamics is what is, uh, constitutes the nature of human relationships. So, when two different people are talking, what matters is not so much what they're saying as an attempt by, by one to dominate the other. And so, what you have would be, let's say, a man's talking to a woman. You have a built-in victim, the woman, and victimizer, the man, and their will, what you want to look at when you try to analyze their, their linguistic exchange, it's not their arguments or the different points they're making, but rather the attempts on the one hand to gain power over the other. And so, you begin to view relationships almost entirely through, through, uh, power dynamics, and, uh, the content of what's being said, uh, goes to the background. And so, if a person tries to argue for their views, then you would just simply charge them with the attempt to gain power over someone. You don't look at the, uh, the persuasiveness of their argument. You look at the use of the argument as an attempt to dominate someone else.
Secondly, this emphasizes, as I said, we said before, a critical race theory places at the forefront group identity, and the division is again, as with neo-Marxism, between victimizer and victim groups. And intersectionality, I think, number three, what unites oppressed groups besides, uh, what the thing that makes them a part of that group, whether they're all, um, gay and lesbian, or whether they're all black, or, or whatever, whatever it is, is what unites all of these groups together is their status as victims. And so, uh, the, the reason that secularists will embrace Muslims but reject Christians is because Christianity is seen as a dominant victimizer group, whereas Muslims in this country are seen as a minority victim group. And so, their status as victims of the dominant, especially white Christian group, makes them have a, a unity with the gay community and with people of color and so on, insofar as they're all victims. And so, unity is based around a common struggle against, for power against the, the victimizer group.
And so, what you have is that, uh, the, the fourth point in critical race theory is that, uh, the fundamental, uh, problem with the human condition, as we've said before, is class warfare, and the fundamental salvation that we seek is liberation from dominance. So, it's about power. Right and wrong, authority, uh, has really, uh, nothing to do with it.
Now, number seven, the DSW movement today is, to one degree or another, socialist. Uh, so, let's just understand that socialism is, is fundamentally an economic, uh, system that says that some can, centralized control group owns the, the resources, the money, and the property of, of that community, uh, uh, especially of that state. Now, communism is, is a version of socialism where the state is what controls how money is distributed, and it's what possesses all the money and all the land and all the houses. And so, the idea of private property or having, uh, personal things that are yours, uh, is, uh, is not allowed in a pure form of socialism. Now, there aren't very many pure forms, so you'll have degrees of it. That you'll have socialist views that will allow for private property to some degree, but, but, but, uh, who's ever in charge, and that will most likely be the government, will have the authority to redistribute wealth according to whatever the, those in charge think ought to be redistributed. They, they have the right, uh, over your, your property, your house, uh, your possessions. So, that socialism, um, uh, is a way of giving the, the, uh, control, uh, to a group, usually a governmental group, to, uh, ultimately own most, if not all, of the wealth and, and, and the goods and services to be distributed as they see fit.
Now, Christianity, uh, is not socialist. What you have in the book of Acts, at the very beginning, where people were sharing everything in common, was a temporary situation because, uh, at those, in those days, Jerusalem was about 60,000 people, and during the Passover time and afterwards, uh, by some estimates, it swelled to about a quarter of a million, 250,000 people. And, um, so, there were, there may not be that many by, by the time the Pentecost took place, but, but there were a lot of people that needed places to stay. They had traveled a long way to get to Jerusalem, and when you have people coming to Christ by the thousands, they don't, they want to stay and sit under the apostles' teachings, and they don't have any place to, uh, to have resources to, to eat and to stay and so on. And so, the church, the believers who lived there, uh, saw this movement as, is important enough that they were sharing. Now, that was never meant to be a model for everything because Paul tells us, if a person is a person does not work, he doesn't eat. And so, uh, there is individual responsibility to work and to earn your own, uh, uh, resources and, uh, to take care of yourself in that way. There are exceptions, uh, but, but, uh, so, that's the point. The Bible would be, uh, uh, clearly teach a form of capitalism, not consumerism, uh, and, and I'm, and that I'm not justifying the abuse of it, but a form of capitalism where there is private property, each person has a, has a right, uh, to their own, uh, what they've earned or, or built, or, uh, to their own, uh, wages. And as a result of that, I think what the, what the Christian, what a Christian worldview would, would emphasize is not forced sharing by the coercive power of government, but rather, uh, voluntarily giving out of a heart of love to help those in need.
So, so this would be a difference. Now, uh, uh, just a, just a couple more points, and then I want to talk about a little bit about the biblical view of how to approach scripture on government. But point number eight, about Black Lives Matter. I want to, I want to draw a very careful distinction between affirming that Black Lives Matter versus being a part of the Black Lives Matter movement. So, let me talk about this. I think the, that affirming that Black Lives Matter is, is not only appropriate, but it's something that is should, is our moral duty today. Now, you might say, well, all lives matter, and that's, that's right, but that's not the point. The point is that what's being surfaced is that, uh, there have been occasions, uh, where, and we, where black people have not been treated as though they matter or are as valuable as, as white people. And in that situation, that needs to be emphasized. And I think that's legitimate. I think that if there's an oppressed group, what we need to do is to affirm that, that those people matter as much as anybody else. And so, I think it's very appropriate for us to be affirming that Black Lives Matter in this particular time. And if it turns out that would be another group that would need that affirmation at a different period of history, we should be behind that.
But the Black Lives Matter movement is something that I don't think any Christian could be a part of because it is, it is clear by its own, you go online and Google it, it's a position, ideological commitments. It, it is committed to the overthrow of the traditional male, a husband and wife family because it's patriarchal. It is for any, any version of the family that people want, uh, uh, gay marriage, it is, it is, uh, strongly abortionist, and, uh, there are a whole, a whole host of other things that, that I could not be a part of the Black Lives Matter movement. I think a lot of people who are a part of it don't understand and are not committed to all these things. They haven't taken time to look that up. I think they're just trying to, to make a difference, and I think probably a lot of them are good-willed, and I think that they're being misled about the use of violence and things, but not all of them are. And so, I think we have to be careful. But I'm just saying that that if you look at the ideology that the Black Lives Matter movement has put online itself, it is something that I could not, as a Christian, ever be a part of. But I would want to be a part of affirming that any particular group that's being harmed matters equally with everyone else.
Well, um, what about white privilege? This would be the last thing I'll say. According to the DSW movement, there is the white privilege is a huge evil, and that means that white people are born, uh, into a situation where they're just privileged, uh, over, over people of color. Uh, they, they get into college better, they get more access to jobs, and, and, and they have a whole bunch of privileges just in so far as they're white. Uh, uh, white, white teenagers don't get pulled over by the police as much as black teenagers do, and that sort of thing.
Now, I want to just say that that is, is there such a thing as white privilege? I think there is, and I think that that, uh, we need to admit that that is part of our, our culture. But a couple of things that I think a Christian should think about. First of all, it's really not my fault as to what ethnicity I have, and it's not random. I didn't just show up and I'm white. God created, had in his foreknowledge created all of us to be a part of our ethnic group. Uh, it was his plan for me to be white, and for perhaps you to be, uh, Hispanic, or, or whatever your ethnicity is. And, and that's something to be treasured, uh, because God made us to be, uh, that way, and it was his favor toward us. And so, uh, the, the white, the Bible teaches us that we are not to see the world as colored. I, I, we are not to be making distinctions about black and white and all that. We're to see each other as brothers and sisters. And you, I think you'll look in vain, uh, if, while the Bible says that there will be people from every tribe and tongue, yeah, but it, but what it does is it never mentions seeing people's color, and it certainly never says that that ought to be the lens through which we view the world. We're to be viewing the world through a Christian lens.
So, um, white privilege, I think, um, we have to be careful that we don't over see the world in this way, though we pro, we admit that it is there and find a balance in the way we look at it. The second thing is that inequalities abound in every classification. And I'm, I'm being very serious about this. People that are overweight are, are not treated as well as people who look good and are fit. Taller people get listened to with more authority and are given, if you're waiting to get a restaurant, taller people tend to get in ushered in first to shorter people. And so, there are, there are literally dozens and dozens of inequalities that aren't just white and color, but they're now, why should we select one and not all of them? And if we started trying to correct all the inequalities based on group f, or personal features, um, we would be, uh, we would be chasing our own tails. So, the point is that the Bible emphasizes liberty over equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity, yes, but not of outcome. And so, this is a very important thing to keep in mind. That's why there's a hell. If, if God were more interested in equality of outcome than he was in freedom and liberty, there would be no hell because that is a dis, disequality of outcome. And what we want is equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. It's ultimately up to us whether we, uh, work hard or what have you. But we do want to eliminate unfair practices. And then, I think, um, what we need to do eventually is that the idea of white privilege again tends to focus too much on group identity. And I really think that we need to, to look more at individuals. For example, there are certain places where poor white people, and you might have an individual white family that has, uh, uh, a much more difficult access to opportunity than a, a well-educated, uh, black family in another part of the country. So, we have to be careful about generalizations here and overstating them, though I do think that there's a legitimacy to some of this, but we have to watch out for this as Christians.
Well, that's a list of about nine things that I think are a part of the DSW movement, and I've tried to compare them with a Christian view. So, now the question is, what, what does the Bible say, uh, is the role of government, and how should I approach, uh, politics and, uh, social issues as a Christian? I wanna, I wanna make two comments on this, and then, then we'll, we'll wrap up. Number one, how do we go about finding out what the Bible says we ought to have as Christians in our view of government? Well, I think it's unwise to go look to Israel because Israel is controversial in this way. Is Israel a model for the covenant people of God, or isn't a model for the secular state? I happen to think that Israel was a theocracy, and it's a better model for the covenant community, which would be believers, rather than being a model for the state. And I think it's very controversial to take principles that were given to Israel and to apply them to secular democracies. Now, there are certainly some teachings that were given to Israel that had nothing to do with them being a theocracy, like murder is wrong, and those are grounded in things like the image of God. But there are other teachings that are grounded in the fact this was a group of people that had formed a, a theocratic state, and I think it's very dangerous to apply that to America.
How do we then use the Bible? Well, I think we're on safe grounds by looking at two kinds of texts to form a biblical view of government. And the first would be Old Testament prophets when they are speaking out against pagan rulers and nations. There, you have the Old Testament prophets. I mean, a classic example of this would be Amos chapter 1 and 2, where he is addressing the pagan nations around Israel and berating their rulers for certain things that were going on. So, there we're on solid grounds because we see the prophets holding the state up to certain standards that, that aren't theocracies. The second would be the key New Testament texts, and there are four of them. Matthew 22:21 is a key text, but then the final, the next three are the most central: Romans 13:1-7, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, and 1 Peter 2:13-14. Now, we look at those texts and the Old Testament prophets, and that puts us on sure ground in developing a view of the state, a non-theocratic state.
Now, there's a second concept that's important, and that's the distinction between negative rights and positive rights. If a right is a negative right, that means that the government or someone else has the duty to keep me from being hindered in getting for myself what I have a right to. For example, if healthcare is a negative right, the government doesn't have the responsibility of giving it to me. It has the responsibility of making sure that I am not discriminated against unfairly, uh, in my attempt to get healthcare for myself. And so, they are to protect me from hindrances, so that I'm treated fairly and impartially. And that's the essence of biblical justice: fair and impartial treatment.
Now, a positive right is a right that where other people owe me something and are to provide the, the good to me for me. So, if healthcare is a positive right, then the government would have the responsibility of giving me health, health care. If, if healthcare is a negative right, the government doesn't have a responsibility of giving it to me, but it does have the job of protecting people from being discriminated against unfairly and, uh, impartial kinds of ways. So, the government is to break up monopolies that are seeking to treat people unfairly.
Now, if you look at these texts in the Old Testament prophets, what you'll discover is the purpose of government in all of these texts is to protect negative rights, not to provide positive rights. So, I went online years ago and published a post that Jesus would not be for universal healthcare. Boy, I was, I was practically crucified. The thing went viral, and people just thought I was the worst thing since sliced bread, I guess. But, uh, the, the issue was actually surfaced, uh, by Star Parker, who is a, really a very dear Christian, a black, uh, uh, activist, and Michael Moore, who is kind of more of a leftist activist. And Moore said that by universal healthcare is simply following Jesus' exhortation that, in as much as you've done this to the least of these, you've done it to me. And Star Parker came back and said, yes, but Jesus did not, would have never promoted the coercive force of government in making you give to someone. He emphasized acts that voluntarily flowed from a good heart and a loving intention. And so, I think that the government is not to be in the job of providing things because it cannot show compassion, because love cannot, or compassion can't be forced. Uh, if, if, if I put a gun to your head and say, you love that person, that's not going to be real love. It's, it's going to be, it's going to be fear of what will happen to you if you don't comply. The New Testament, and certainly the ethics of Jesus, emphasize acts that have moral worth are those that come from a, from a good character and a pure heart, uh, in a voluntary way. And that is why, in my view, the church and charities are to be a place, uh, where, uh, we are to care for the poor. And I think the government, by and large, is not the right place for this to do so. I think a minimal government is kind of what the scriptures teach, rather than a large government.
Now, these are, these have been hard issues, and I know that. And I've done the best I can to delineate nine different aspects of the contemporary DSW movement, and along the way, I've tried to provide a contrast on each point with what a Christian worldview, in my view, would, would hold, and to let you compare the two. And then, regarding scripture, if we look at the Old Testament prophets as they speak to pagan governments, and if we look in the New Testament texts that are specifically about the secular state and government, we discover that the teaching involves the government's responsibility to guard negative rights, but not to provide positive ones.
Now, let me say, then, once again, that we have to be wise that we do not allow the world to squeeze us into its mold. Uh, on the other hand, we need to be standing for disenfranchised groups and be reaching out to those on the borders of society as, as a church community. And I believe that I've tried to lay out for you what I think is the way to think about this. And as I said at the beginning, all I'm doing is asking you if you'd be willing to hear me out and to weigh what I'm saying. These are tough issues, and all I ask is that wherever you come down on this, that you would have biblically sound reasons for holding what you do. And if, if you do, and we don't agree, I will respect you, uh, because you're attempting to do your best to follow Jesus and the word. And that way, we can agree to disagree on things and still love each other, and it's not the end of the world. So, thank you, and I hope that you found this helpful.