A bout of diarrhea, then finally something solid

At the end of this rambling post where she traipses about while saying very little that has anything to do with the price of eggs, finally Keely Emerine-Mix gives us something solid upon which we can wield our clinical scatoscopes:

A proud insistence on not ever shrinking back from Scripture can easily, and has here, become a proud insistence on cultivating the skill of walking over the poor and sick while never wavering from a detailed hermeneutic of self-rewarding insouciance in the face of suffering. The priest who ignored the man beaten and robbed prided himself on being right in ignoring him; the Samaritan who helped the victim simply was righteous. Jesus ignored the letter of the Law in healing a blind man on the Sabbath and in not declaring unclean the bleeding woman who touched his robe; He is Lord of the Sabbath and the fulfillment of the Law, and we can be like him in revering the entire meaning of the Word of life, or we can devote our energies to studying only the words and missing the Word. The issue here is not "charity at gunpoint," as Witmer and his pals call taxation and social services. The issue is simply this: What will most benefit the ones Christ died for, and benefit them in his name and for his glory? The answer, I'm afraid, isn't going to be found until we look up from the text and seek to apply it all in the context of Christ's amazing, astonishing, powerful redemptive Word.

First, no, Christ did not ignore the letter of the Law in healing on the Sabbath, or in declaring someone unclean who touched his robe: as the Logos, Jesus is the letter of the law. Basically, what Mrs. Mix is admitting in this post is that she can't make a case for her socialist vision for welfare from Scripture. That's why she tells us that we have to get beyond the text. What that really means is that we have to get beyond Christ's commandments and Christ's own example as the Good Samaritan. This is the 21st century, she tells us, and outmoded approaches to welfare under the authority of the institutions of the Family and the Church are no longer satisfactory (Chesterton notwithstanding); instead, it is God's will that the secular State should, without acknowledging the Lordship of the Triune God, establish the closest thing possible to Heaven on earth.

The polite term for that, dear reader, is doublespeak. Or, to paraphrase Mrs. Mix's own words, it's "superficially looking and sounding biblical but not even remotely Christian." Or in Paul's words, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."

The day that Christ's commandments and personal example are no longer applicable and binding on Christians is the day that Christ ceases to be Lord and Savior of His people.