A response to Thabiti Anyabwile

This is a response to Thabiti Anyabwile’s article, "The Myth of Impeccable Individualism." Although he makes good points and uses Scripture, his interpretation raises questions. 

To whom is God speaking in Isaiah 1?  

Thabiti Anyabwile quotes Isaiah 1:11-17 to back up his contention that God deals with us not just as individuals, but as societies. This verse, like many often quoted in questions of social justice, is from the Old Testament. What has changed since then, and how do New Testament believers apply these verses? While such questions may seem unnecessary, they are important in light of the fact that these verses were not addressed to any old nation, but to Israel as the people of God. In our day and age, Israel is not the people of God in the way it was in the Old Testament. So, to whom is God speaking in this verse? Can this verse be applied to whole societies consisting of professing Christians along with those who do not call themselves believers? I would say no, for several reasons. First, no nation today is really the people of God the way Israel was. Israel was to be a theocracy. For them, theocracy was no violation of human rights but God’s will. The kings had the right and duty to do the following: persecute people for their religious beliefs and practices, punish sexual encounters between consenting adults, and finance religious behavior. In ancient Israel, such things were right and good because Israel was the people of God. Unless we, as a nation, wish to hold the whole nation to the standard of God’s word through legal force, we cannot equate our nation with Israel. Such a view does not cause us to fall back on the notion of individualism. We, as Christians, are part of a community, the community of faith, the visible church, consisting of both the truly regenerate and those who profess Christianity but are deceived. I believe this community corresponds to Israel because those who rule over it may hold those in it to the standards of God’s Word. Religious diversity could not be tolerated in Israel, as it cannot be tolerated among church members. You cannot be a member of a proper, Bible-believing church and be a Hindu, for instance. 

For this reason, I see corporate responsibility as definitely existing within the church, particularly within each denomination, and especially within congregations, where people are more likely to know one another’s business. If church members fail to confront one another about sin, they are failing their duties. If church leaders fail to exercise church discipline, they are culpable for their failure to take a stand against evil. And there come times when the church must come to an official position on questions of evil. In this way, the Church has failed to confront evil, and corporate repentance may be fitting, assuming those who take up that responsibility really do speak for the church, and act out of true contrition, not merely a fit of teenage rebellion. (See C. S. Lewis, "On the Dangers of National Repentance")

Unlike Israel, the Church lacks the wide variety of institutions and responsibilities which a sovereign nation has. Instead, believers participate in the broader economy, national government, and cultural life. As long as this world continues in its fallen state, these institutions will be marred by sin. Our duty to confront sin in these areas of society is the dicy question. 

 

Fewer accidents?

In many parts of America, you need a car to get anywhere. This means that, in order to lead a normal life in most parts of the United States, one must obtain a drivers' license, which means at least passing a drivers' test and not having any disability which prevents one from driving. In many states, getting a drivers' license also involves taking a driving course, at least for people of a certain age. Aspiring drivers may also be required to complete a certain number of hours of driving. Such requirements are needed to prevent accidents, but they can cause unforeseen problems and difficulties. If driving were optional in the United States, ensuring driver and passenger safety would be much more straightforward. However, denying someone the privilege of driving in the United States severely limits that person, creating a difficulty greater than that created by some disabilities. People who cannot drive must limit themselves to living in places with good public transportation. Being unable to drive limits the jobs a person can take, and may be a factor in not being considered for employment.

Since the infrastructure of so many places in the United States practically requires people to drive, people who are not that good at driving although they may past the requisite tests(i.e. not good at multitasking, poor eyesight but not legally blind, are easily distracted, etc.), must still get behind the wheel instead of leaving the operation of a motor vehicle in more competent hands. How many accidents have occurred which could have been prevented by the availability of a reliable bus or an affordable, dependable taxi? Were Americans less car dependent, it would be feasible to tighten the requirements for obtaining a license. The law treats driving as a privilege, while, in our society, it seems like it is more, almost like it must be a right. Americans would be much safer if being able to drive were more often merely a convenience, not a necessity of life.