Skip to main content

Response to Article in The Atlantic

I wrote this in response to an article in The Atlantic titled "Some of the Most Visible Christians in American are Failing the Coronavirus Test," found here: 



To Whomever at The Atlantic whose eyes this might reach:

I was saddened to read Jonathan Merritt's article about the attitudes of Christians about the coronavirus and President Trump. As a Christian in the evangelical world, I can speak for many when I say that the attitudes Merritt describes are the very ones many Christians are so sensitive about. We are very aware of our sullied reputation among nonbelievers, and many of us do everything in our power to share Christ's love for the world with both our actions and our faith. Merritt admits as much toward the end of his article when he acknowledges that "Most Christians...are trying their best to live a life consistent with their faith." While I don't know the believers Merritt mentions enough to defend their words (with the possible exception of John Piper), I think it's important to note that the notion of God's judgment for sin is a logical one that results from our knowledge of the Old Testament. I don't say this to support the idea that God is using the virus to judge us. I simply worry that Merritt may have misrepresented the attitudes of some of these men, whom Merritt casts as cold toward those who might suffer or die (although Reno's "demonic" quote, seems pretty clear). Instead, they may be interpreting it as best they know how. Personally, I believe that Romans 8:20-21 applies to the virus: "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in the hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Nature itself, which at the beginning God pronounced was "very good," was warped by man's decision to sin. If anyone is responsible for the virus, it is us.

With that said, I understand and certainly agree with the choice to highlight the evangelical support we see for Donald Trump in an article critical of American Christians. It surprises me, too, and as someone who does not support Trump for the reasons Merritt mentions, I was just as shocked to see such support among believers. Still, the ugliness of the church was never a reason to reject the one who formed it. Christ is always our model, and while the church is indeed filled with hypocrites, like me, many of us nevertheless--again, as Merritt acknowledges--strive to be Christ-like. It seems to me that the echo chamber of our culture today is perhaps all the worse now due to social isolation, among Christian and non-Christian alike; but while stereotypes about Christians have shades of truth to them (we are all judgmental and hypocritical at times, and there are those among us who are homophobic), they are--like Satan's tempting of Adam and Eve--a twisting of that truth, in this case by measuring the whole by the few.

Merritt writes that Christians, on the whole, try to live by Christ's values, that they "run soup kitchens and homeless shelters, hand out water bottles at summer community events, and are more likely than the average American to donate to charity." I have seen this time and again inside and outside the church's doors. I am simply asking that you get to know us on an individual level. The apostle John writes in his first epistle that we should not "believe every spirit," but instead should "test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." Just as John implores believers to watch for false Christians, so I ask that you measure us by our lives. "Anyone," John continues, "who does not know love does not know God." This is the test of Christian faith.

Finally, I am sorry. I am sorry for all of the harm we have done--that I have done-- that would serve to dim the light of Christ, if that were possible. Gratefully, Christ's glory cannot be dimmed, and that glory is reflected in his words to a world in need of him: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

Thank you for reading. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your articles and your willingness to hear me.

Tony Sciarini
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Heroes

Although we have several examples of heroes in our day, one of the best known is of a woman named Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (“Gonja Bojaju”), who devoted her life to sustaining the “poor, sick, orphaned, and dying.” Her venue was Calcutta, India, where she served as a teacher until she began to take notice of the poverty there. Seeking to do something about it, she began an organization that consisted of just thirteen members at its inception. Called the “Missionaries of Charity,” the organization would eventually burgeon into well over 5,000 members worldwide, running approximately 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries; and caring for the orphaned, blind, aged, disabled, and poor. As her personal work expanded, she traveled to countries like Lebanon, where she rescued 37 children from a hospital by pressing for peace between Israel and Palestine; to Ethiopia, where she traveled to help the hungry; to Chernobyl, Russia, to assist victims of the nuclear meltdown there; and to ...
2 comments
Read more

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...
2 comments
Read more

Comparative Medical Care

One thing I'd like to understand is why there is such a difference between medical costs here and those in Haiti. At the time the book Mountains Beyond Mountains was written, in 2003, it often cost $15,000 to $20,000 annually to treat a patient with tuberculosis, while it cost one one-hundredth of that-- $150 to $200-- to treat a patient for the disease in Haiti. Even if the figures aren't completely accurate, the sheer difference would still be there. Indeed, the United States pays more per capita for medical care than any other country on Earth. My first guess for why the disparity exists is that there is a market willing and able to pay more for medical treatment, so suppliers see the demand and respond with higher prices. According to at least one doctor (go to http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_the_cause_of_excess_co.php), part of the reason is administrative prices here. People here have a higher standard of living, and so the cost of care is shifted to ...
2 comments
Read more