"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them." So stated Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act.
Justice Antonin Scalia dissented: "We should start calling the law SCOTUScare." He decried "the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
One FoxNews writer stated, "Thursday's Supreme Court decision made things much better for all of us." Another FoxNews writer disagreed and called on voters to elect leaders who will replace the legislation with "something better."
Which side of the ObamaCare debate do you support? Is your position based on your firsthand knowledge of the Affordable Care Act and related legislative issues? Or is it based on your political leanings and your opinion of the Obama administration?
Frankly, I don't know nearly enough about the ACA and the legal complexities concerning congressional intent to defend a personal position in the debate. I suspect that most Americans are in the same position. So we'll form an opinion regarding something we don't fully understand based on what we think we do understand.
This is the way of the world. I have no idea how typing the keys on my laptop results in the Cultural Commentary you're now reading. But 15 years of writing these daily essays has taught me to trust a process I don't fully comprehend. Nearly everything I experience across a given day involves realities I don't understand, from using the Internet to driving my car to talking on my cell phone.
Look around yourself. How well can you explain what you see? How are your clothes manufactured? Your desk? Your window? Your air conditioner? What in your life can you actually make for yourself? Dependence on what we don't understand is a fact of 21st century life. But it shouldn't be a fact of 21st century faith.
Paul grieved for the Corinthians: "I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:1). What is the difference? "I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh" (vs. 2-3).
Milk is digested meat. The mother eats food which her body turns into nourishment her child can process. If we base our beliefs on the beliefs of others, ours is a second-hand faith. (Tweet this) When we get our spiritual nourishment primarily from sermons, podcasts, and even sources such as this Cultural Commentary, we are substituting milk for meat. To the degree that my words reflect and lead you to God's word, all is well. To the degree that my words contradict or substitute for his, all is not well.
It's okay to decide what you think about the Supreme Court's ObamaCare decision based on the opinions of those you respect. But beware our postmodern culture's equation of personal opinion with objective truth. Make sure your decisions about life's ultimate questions are based on life's ultimate answers: the word of God.
Publication date: June 26, 2015
For more from the Denison Forum on Truth and Culture, please visit www.denisonforum.org.
Do you want to live a life in whole-hearted pursuit of loving God and others?
Read today's First15 at www.first15.org.