Quote:
Originally Posted by toddpedlar  Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum The book WAS a reaction against another book was it not? Therefore it was not primarily written as a positive treatment on the subject of how to help the poor, but to primarily correct a false theological view - i.e. a reaction. Reactions NEVER show the full story. | Well, you really don't know what Chilton's book intended to convey without reading it, so perhaps it would have been best to say nothing about what its content was or was not...  |
I have it saved in PDF form on my computer actually. It's ONLY 439 pages long.
It is a great tool against Liberation Theologies.
Sider was a flawed theologian advocating greater concern for the poor. Chilton shut him down.
Again, Jonathan Bonk's book is a much more reasoned approach than Siders.
And again, The Chilton book (hey, didn't he apostasize anyhow) IS a reaction against Sider. That makes the book a reaction and a response.
Why is it that there is a lack of books from a Reformed perspective about the poor and the most well known one was only written in reaction?
Chilton hammers the silly ideas of Sider about govt' intervention, food aid, a higher food tax for the developed nations to pay, etc and by Sider's 4th edition in 1997, Sider was advocating a lot more free market ideas to help out world hunger.
Sider also always advocates a whole Gospel for the whole person; i.e. trying to help people practically as well as give them the Gospel. Chilton advocates this help too.
Chilton is quite harsh too Sider in the book and this reduces its merits. It almost sounds as if Chiltonis gunning for Sider instead of trying to correct his views.
Also, Chilton's defense of slavery does not sit well:
"The Bible permits slavery. This statement will come as a shock to most people. The laws in the Bible concerning slavery have very seldom been studied, much less preached upon. But the biblical laws concerning slavery are among the most beneficent in all the Bible. The biblical institution of slavery has as its basic purpose the elimination of poverty..."
To say that the Bible permitted slavery is one thing; to say that it is still okay is a greater leap. To lament that slavery is not preached on enough today seems odd.
Siders 1999 work,
Just Generosity, is much more balanced.
What I object to is Chilton's labelling of Sider as a "guilt manipulator." I believe Sider's call for the West to do more was correct, even though he had only socilaistic notions to offer. His diagnosis was mostly sound, his medicine (a good dose of socialism) was like medicating with poison.
Are those pictures of little starving kids on TV at night guilt manipulation? Or is the West so emotionally detached that nothing moves them anymore. Sider tried to wake up the West and he did suceed in waking them up.
Gary North even says as much here:
RON SIDER HAS MOVED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, by Gary North.
It appears that Sider was one of the first out of the shoots as evangelicals tried to get a social conscience. 20 editions later, and now Sider is a capitalist.
P.S> There is an interesting article about Sider in Christianity Today:
CT Classic: Ron Sider's Unsettling Crusade | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction