Biblical illiteracy is a big problem for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the inability of well-intentioned people to know when they are being played by political activists. Recent history has afforded a couple opportunities to witness this spectacle.
First came student loan debt "forgiveness." Even the name has biblical overtones. Never mind that even a charitable reading of the Biden-imposed debt transfer reveals it to be painfully regressive and morally skewed, set aside the high degree of likelihood that the act is illegal, progressives not only defended the bill, they deified it:
At best the former NBA coach's tweet represents an irresponsibly juvenile understanding of Scripture. Irresponsible because if you don't care enough to comprehend the text, you shouldn't be using it with authority. At worst it's flagrantly and intentionally unbiblical – hijacking the Lord's name in a vain effort to gain an unearned credibility by attaching it to Van Gundy's own pet agenda.
The same play book is being utilized in the advancement of a different, albeit even costlier abuse of public resources: climate change alarmism.
The left-leaning Religion News Service recently published an article boasting of a new "evangelical group" that is proclaiming "a biblical mandate for action." I searched the article for that biblical mandate, but the evangelical group in question, the National Association of Evangelicals, offered nothing other than broad generalizations about "loving your neighbor" and being hospitable.
"We worship God by caring for creation," the report says. I don't disagree. But I am curious about a few things. First, the eagerness with which many secular progressives on the left have embraced this evangelical "mandate." Are they suddenly approving of biblical litmus tests being the foundation of American public policy? If so, when do we start talking about the sanctity of human life and about sexual ethics? If the Bible is authoritative enough to trust on environmental policy, why not other policy as well?
But secondly, though no biblically minded person disagrees with the command to love your neighbor or to show hospitality to others, they can certainly disagree with the assumption that doing so involves supporting progressive climate policy.
For instance, consider the implications here:
See how this works? We could hardly be loving our neighbor if we wish to subject them to the kind of water crisis that is happening in Jackson, Mississippi. Therefore, good Christians who take the Bible seriously will happily support robust climate change legislation.
Except what is happening in Jackson has nothing to do with climate change. It has everything to do with a colossal failure of government – the very entity responsible Christians are being told by the NAE and others that they should invest thousands of times more public resources in to stave off rising tides and melting glaciers? How is that even remotely responsible stewardship of money, of creation, of anything?
Further, consider an issue that does have to do with climate change, specifically the kinds of policies that the NAE broadly endorses with this supposed "biblical mandate." California is America's leading state in the implementation of climate change legislation – they are the model we are being told to follow. So what has that government done on behalf of not just the environment they steward, but the people they serve?
The climate change religionists who control the California government have voted to ban the sale of gas cars soon, with the hopes of forcing everyone into more environmentally conscious electric cars. But that same California government is warning its citizens that they don't have enough electricity for them to charge their electric cars or run their refrigerator.
Keep in mind, California has the world's 5th largest economy with a gross state product of $3.4 trillion. Imagine what these kinds of policies do to areas of the world that are not nearly so rich. It defies common sense to believe that Christians are offering "hospitality" or "loving their third world neighbors" by advocating global policy that will prevent industrialization and lock the world's poor in abject destitution.
If the NAE or any other pseudo-Christian organization wants to try to convince me to join their favored political crusade, I'm all ears. But when you're advocating the global implementation of a regressive burden that harms the poor by disproportionately limiting their resources and mobility, it would be best to leave the Bible out of it.
