Voices: Stay or separate from the AMA
Should Christian physicians leave the American Medical Association?
“Belonging to [the AMA ] probably makes you complicit with evil”
“I don’t think we ought to leave groups like the AMA for secularists, but try to reform them. Christians have an obligation to work with non-Christians, not pull out of the arena into their own enclave. One way to do that is to stay members of secular groups”
This is a great example of the difficulty of applying separation. On the one hand, it seems strange to require Christians to separate from professional organizations which do not claim to be Christian. On the other hand, it is possible that certain organizations could be distinctively anti-Christian. (We might imagine Planned Parenthood as being incompatible with the Christian ethic.) It’s probably not possible to say without a good deal of particular knowledge of the organization. One broad guideline would be whether they have some sort of mechanism for recognizing a “minority position” or dissent. I doubt anyone would accuse every member of the Supreme Court of being complicit in a particular immoral decision, since those who disagree have the opportunity to explain their dissent.
A separate but related issue would be whether there is a compelling reason to join the AMA. I think one could make a case that there are organizations that one may choose to associate with but that there is no moral obligation or strong pressure to do so. In other words, it may not be a failure of Christian duty not to be a part.
A separate but related issue would be whether there is a compelling reason to join the AMA. I think one could make a case that there are organizations that one may choose to associate with but that there is no moral obligation or strong pressure to do so. In other words, it may not be a failure of Christian duty not to be a part.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
maybe this example is like the soldiers Jesus talked to—He didn’t ask them to leave their profession (which was most likely very difficult to be morally and ethically right in), just to be content.
this is just a group to join, but mabye the prinicple is similar.
this is just a group to join, but mabye the prinicple is similar.
Obviously doctors know best whether the AMA is compatabile with their consciences.
That said, it’s not at all clear that this is an issue of “separation” in the technical sense in which Fundamentalists use the term. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does separation ever have anything to do with explicitly non-Christian associations. Indeed, Paul implies the exact opposite in 1 Cor. when he clarifies that he does not mean not to associate with pagans (who are sexually immoral).
So, I think Plantinga is right in principle, although this principle obviously allows people to do what they must. If the AMA is a non-essential professional group it may just be a hassle and waste of a doctors’ time to be a member (that’s what some of the comments implied), and if people think it’s immoral to stay in, then it obviously is for them and they should leave.
Still, the principle Plantinga enunciates is important, and I wish more Fundamentalists had stuck to it when the theological issue of separation was a big one. A friend of mine who is Episcopalian/Anglican, part of the evangelical wing that people like Os Guinness make up, said the Church of England “reached the bottom” in the ’80s, and so he thinks it’s exciting to be an Anglican now because one can only go up, and in many ways liberals eliminate themselves over time, leaving only the faithful - which, fortunately for them, are a lot of evangelicals in the Anglican Communion.
Obviously this is somewhat off topic, but it’s one reason I’m glad some people stay committed and conservative in denominations like the PCUSA. As things develop, and certain factions continue to liberalize (a process one can trace by watching what goes on at Princeton Theological Seminary, for example), it will be more and more beneficial to have faithful Christians who can resist the pull and, in all likelihood, pick up the pieces after cultural accomodation has run itself into the ground, which it always does. This requires a long-view, which I think Americans have a particularly difficult time with. The idea that the fruits of our labor may not manifest for another generation or two, or even longer, is hard to swallow.
Since denominationalism is declining in general, I’m increasingly appreciative of people who are committed to sustaining their denominational structures. The lack of committment to denominations that is increasingly prevalent among my cohort (18-29) is understandable and in many ways justified, but I worry about it’s long term consequences. I think we, particularly in America, underestimate the importance and power of institutions, so an institutionally uncommitted group of Christians is an exciting but also disconcerting prospect.
That said, it’s not at all clear that this is an issue of “separation” in the technical sense in which Fundamentalists use the term. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does separation ever have anything to do with explicitly non-Christian associations. Indeed, Paul implies the exact opposite in 1 Cor. when he clarifies that he does not mean not to associate with pagans (who are sexually immoral).
So, I think Plantinga is right in principle, although this principle obviously allows people to do what they must. If the AMA is a non-essential professional group it may just be a hassle and waste of a doctors’ time to be a member (that’s what some of the comments implied), and if people think it’s immoral to stay in, then it obviously is for them and they should leave.
Still, the principle Plantinga enunciates is important, and I wish more Fundamentalists had stuck to it when the theological issue of separation was a big one. A friend of mine who is Episcopalian/Anglican, part of the evangelical wing that people like Os Guinness make up, said the Church of England “reached the bottom” in the ’80s, and so he thinks it’s exciting to be an Anglican now because one can only go up, and in many ways liberals eliminate themselves over time, leaving only the faithful - which, fortunately for them, are a lot of evangelicals in the Anglican Communion.
Obviously this is somewhat off topic, but it’s one reason I’m glad some people stay committed and conservative in denominations like the PCUSA. As things develop, and certain factions continue to liberalize (a process one can trace by watching what goes on at Princeton Theological Seminary, for example), it will be more and more beneficial to have faithful Christians who can resist the pull and, in all likelihood, pick up the pieces after cultural accomodation has run itself into the ground, which it always does. This requires a long-view, which I think Americans have a particularly difficult time with. The idea that the fruits of our labor may not manifest for another generation or two, or even longer, is hard to swallow.
Since denominationalism is declining in general, I’m increasingly appreciative of people who are committed to sustaining their denominational structures. The lack of committment to denominations that is increasingly prevalent among my cohort (18-29) is understandable and in many ways justified, but I worry about it’s long term consequences. I think we, particularly in America, underestimate the importance and power of institutions, so an institutionally uncommitted group of Christians is an exciting but also disconcerting prospect.
[Joseph]I’m not interested in pursuing the idea down biblical lines, but in terms of Fundamentalism, I do think many Fundamentalists would view this as a separation issue. At least at BJU, I was taught that the general Biblical principles of separation are 1) Don’t sin and 2) Don’t maintain sinful associations. Now, most of the time discussing these was spent on the much narrower secondary separation from “neo-evangelicals” issue, but not all. For example, many Fundamentalists I know would refuse to work at a restaurant that served alcohol, even if they personally would not be serving the alcohol. To them it was a sinful association. I know a Fundamentalist who was spiritually concerned over his job, which had something to do with packaging wine bottles. BJU had rules against students wearing Abercrombie & Fitch or Hollister clothing, since they considered those corporations too wicked for Christians to patronize.
That said, it’s not at all clear that this is an issue of “separation” in the technical sense in which Fundamentalists use the term. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does separation ever have anything to do with explicitly non-Christian associations. Indeed, Paul implies the exact opposite in 1 Cor. when he clarifies that he does not mean not to associate with pagans (who are sexually immoral).
The issue in these cases is the individual’s relationship between himself and a non-Christian organization that is perceived as having a sinful agenda or encouraging people to sin. I believe that the Fundamentalist professors under which I studied would view these as being in the same genus (or deriving from the same basic principles) as ecclesiastical separation. In fact, I think I have a chart from Tim Jordan (not absolutely sure that’s the right guy) which says that explicitly. I’m not saying any of these cases present the same exact scenario as the AMA, but obviously many people are feeling a tension that is not dissimilar from the tension felt by church members in churches they consider to be compromised, or churches in denominations and associations that they perceive to be headed in the wrong direction. There are similarities upon which we can reflect and perhaps gain insight into our ecclesiastical situations. Your post did exactly that.
Edit: I’d like to add that I agree with you that the doctors involved are the best judges, and I didn’t enter this thread with the intention of passing judgment. I find it interesting, though, that many people who have perhaps never heard of the concept of “separation” as articulated by a Fundamentalist are nevertheless facing situations requiring them to give thought to it. It shows that separation, considered broadly, is an issue that everyone is likely to face in some way during their life. Whether or not one has a committed position of “separation,” one will make choices about the morality of associations.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Charlie,
I can see how such people would view the issue as a separation issue.
To that, however, I would respond by saying that the fact that they extend separation to the notion of sin associations is one reason Fundamentalists seems so petty and confused when they talk about separation. ILumping liquor shops into the same category as separating from false teachers is an excellent way to undermine one’s credibility.
I grew up with people with similar concerns, but I think those concerns are fundamentally false, and totally inconsistent with passages like the one I mentioned.
The actual principles and thinking one has to resort to in order to make sense of notions of support of sin, etc. are extremely complex and disallow the simplistic approach of Fundamentalists: I think x is sin, y is associated with x, therefore I ought to stay away from y.
The irony that result from the gross inconsistency is evident to everyone but the person and groups that so reason. Many would quite plausibly argue, for example, that certain forms of capitalism are unethical, blatantly inconsistent with Scripture and Christian’s tradition of moral reflection. In fact, this is simply a historical fact (the reception of Smith’s ideas, for example, among Christians has been interestingly studied in Steward Davenport’s Friends of the Unrighteous Mammon: Northern Christians and Market Capitalism, 1815-1860, U of C Press, and the ethically negative character of unrestrained markets and economic thought has been powerfully addressed in Stephen Marglin’s The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community, Harvard University Press - Marglin, by the way, is no “crazy liberal” but a moderate, respected Harvard economist). This is why so many people, although somewhat unfairly, see contemporary Fundamentalism is utterly inconsistent in its strident attack on Darwinism and wholesale support for the economic thought that nurtured Darwinism and was nurtured by it in turn (for an eloquent example of this critique, one could read Marilynne Robinson’s “Onward, Christian Liberals” in the Spring, 2006 issue of The American Scholar). Robinson, among others, rightly points to the social activism and progressism of evangelicals. Now Fundamentalists associate the actions of their own forbears with theological liberalism. Irony indeed.
I can see how such people would view the issue as a separation issue.
To that, however, I would respond by saying that the fact that they extend separation to the notion of sin associations is one reason Fundamentalists seems so petty and confused when they talk about separation. ILumping liquor shops into the same category as separating from false teachers is an excellent way to undermine one’s credibility.
I grew up with people with similar concerns, but I think those concerns are fundamentally false, and totally inconsistent with passages like the one I mentioned.
The actual principles and thinking one has to resort to in order to make sense of notions of support of sin, etc. are extremely complex and disallow the simplistic approach of Fundamentalists: I think x is sin, y is associated with x, therefore I ought to stay away from y.
The irony that result from the gross inconsistency is evident to everyone but the person and groups that so reason. Many would quite plausibly argue, for example, that certain forms of capitalism are unethical, blatantly inconsistent with Scripture and Christian’s tradition of moral reflection. In fact, this is simply a historical fact (the reception of Smith’s ideas, for example, among Christians has been interestingly studied in Steward Davenport’s Friends of the Unrighteous Mammon: Northern Christians and Market Capitalism, 1815-1860, U of C Press, and the ethically negative character of unrestrained markets and economic thought has been powerfully addressed in Stephen Marglin’s The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community, Harvard University Press - Marglin, by the way, is no “crazy liberal” but a moderate, respected Harvard economist). This is why so many people, although somewhat unfairly, see contemporary Fundamentalism is utterly inconsistent in its strident attack on Darwinism and wholesale support for the economic thought that nurtured Darwinism and was nurtured by it in turn (for an eloquent example of this critique, one could read Marilynne Robinson’s “Onward, Christian Liberals” in the Spring, 2006 issue of The American Scholar). Robinson, among others, rightly points to the social activism and progressism of evangelicals. Now Fundamentalists associate the actions of their own forbears with theological liberalism. Irony indeed.
Discussion