The thesis of this chapter is not that certain social institutions are inherently corrupt while others are acceptable. The assertion is that any social institution that a believer uses to replace his or her reliance on God is—for that individual—a functional substitute for God.^[1]

^[1] This paragraph uses two terms that require definition. A social institution is a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society. The term can be used of a country's legal system, the practice of medicine, religion in a broad sense (or a specific organized church in a restricted sense), the provision and use of insurance to protect real property or intangible assets, and so on. A functional substitute was defined earlier as an institution that replaces another primary institution when that primary institution becomes inaccessible or unresponsive, or is held in low esteem. This chapter adds the specific qualifier for God to the more general term functional substitute. In the context of this chapter, a functional substitute for God identifies a social institution that is used to replace God as the One who provides.

    The more familiar biblical term for a functional substitute for God is an idol. We are quick to see Israel's sin in serving Baal. Yet, we are terribly slow to see our own idolatry when we rely on insurance policies, use medicine, make investments, or depend on government agencies because we are unwilling to trust God.

    Even a cursory evaluation of technological and social development over the past 200 years (approximately the time span since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution) indicates that humanity is set on taking greater control of the unknown. There is much to be grateful for in the advances within education, medicine, transportation, and personal conveniences. Nonetheless, any of these areas can be used either wisely or with unwitting dependency by today's believer.

    Four areas requiring the greatest caution are medicine, insurance, financial investments (including pensions), and legal/government institutions. None of these are inherently wrong. On the contrary, each can be used to very worthwhile advantage.

    Yet, the believer who wants to rely more on God must carefully scrutinize all of these institutions for potential abuse.

    We can never say that God will always lead a believer to do one thing, or never to do another. Nonetheless, a believer's use of some social institutions may be a prudent use of the resources God has given. Use of other social institutions by the same believer may indicate lack of reliance on God's provision or sovereignty.

    There would be little debate that someone with a broken arm should go to a doctor, or that homeowner's insurance should be carried on the family home, or that a pension is a wise part of retirement planning. On the other hand, for the believer intent on living by faith, we may question such things as using genetic screening followed by radical surgeries as a protection against potential health problems, buying high-dollar trip life insurance at the airport, using fertility drugs, or initiating lawsuits for defamation of character.

    In each case, believers wanting to live by faith need to determine the place of their trust relative to the sovereignty of God. There will be times when prudently making use of our society's institutions does not represent any lack of trust in God. It may be as simple as determining that it is easier to budget for a quarterly insurance payment which includes collision coverage than it would be to use savings to repair an automobile damaged in an accident.

    At other times the same believer may have a clear sense that seeking medical treatment, buying insurance, placing undue emphasis on financial security in retirement, or depending on government agencies is contrary to trusting God.

    Those attempting to live by faith will have difficulty in this area because the majority of American Christians unwittingly accept many functional substitutes for God. There has been such a proliferation of technologies and social services since World War II that it is often difficult to identify the number of resources we have today which have removed us from direct reliance on God. In that same interval of time, the Western social conscience has radically shifted—not only to accommodate technology—but also to accept it as the norm. In the early 1900s, certain medical emergencies could only be left to Providence. If the patient lived, there was gratitude. If the patient died, it was "God's will." Today, we are increasingly faced with medical ethical debates as to the appropriate time to remove life support and so on. Much of this debate is fueled by the developing social consciousness which demands that every patient must be given—and avail themselves of—the highest level of medical technology in order to prolong life. (Interestingly, this increasing demand is concurrent with the debate regarding assisted suicide. Both discussions grow out of the human desire to assume more control of life.)

    Medical ethicists are well ahead of most believers in many of these issues. The medical ethicist may realize that there is need for caution. Yet, the believer may give little consideration to trusting God with an outcome while continuing to use every avenue of medical help available. The modern Church has generally accepted all of these functional substitutes for God as being routine and acceptable rather than emphasizing the need to exercise faith when making individual decisions.

    These are areas in which you must be extremely careful. Do not assume that if you want to live by faith you must refuse all help that does not come directly from God. At the same time, you must be discerning so that you do not fail to recognize when you would be using functional substitutes rather than relying on God Himself.

    Irrespective of the desire to trust God, a believer cannot ignore society's valid need to create equitable living conditions for the majority. For good reasons, you can no longer put a child who is not wearing a lifejacket in a private boat, claiming to trust in God for the child's protection. The Coast Guard mandates that the child wear a lifejacket. For the well-being of others, you cannot refuse to buy property insurance, choosing instead to trust God to protect your new home against fire. Your mortgage company will not finance the house unless you carry homeowner's insurance. Because the financial future of others sharing Social Security is at stake, you cannot refuse to pay your share of retirement withholding tax.

    I do not think that the believer must react to these regulations and laws as though our freedoms are being challenged. They are designed for the greater good of society. It is not our prerogative to pass the risk of our personal faith on to others. We cannot ask the mortgage company—or a neighbor whose house would also be jeopardized—to carry the risk of our trust in God. We cannot ask others to support us in our old age because we want to avoid paying Social Security tax.

    Nonetheless, you will often be alone as you make decisions to trust God rather than the functional substitutes provided by society. You must fully realize that there are multiple reasons why certain institutions operate as they do. For example, doctors and medical staff—as well as the insurance industries funding your treatment—have established procedures that work best, on average, for everyone concerned. They are reticent to take either the time or the risk to treat your condition differently. You must also realize that in our free enterprise economy, your medical treatment is a source of revenue for the medical and insurance institutions.

    You will not find it either easy or stress-free to make a decision regarding your medical treatment when you are placing the emphasis on trusting God rather than medicine. Dealing with the medical community and insurance carriers can be difficult—if not costly—when you decline prescribed treatment.

    Let me anticipate two areas of question you will face. The first question might be, "Must I choose either to accept all medical treatment recommended or to decline everything?" The second question could be, "Can I change my mind later?"

    Most experiences involving faith are dynamic rather than static. That means that progressive decisions will be made as the situation unfolds. In few areas of life will you make a single decision at the beginning that will determine the entire outcome. I don't see why it would be any different for medical treatment or other areas of living by faith. As you carefully consider before God what you are doing, you may add insurance later, or you may stop taking a medication during the course of treatment. You may elect certain treatment but forego other procedures.

    The broader issue of making financial investment for the purpose of retirement is likely one of the most difficult issues a believer will face when living by faith. Medicine and property insurance issues are often more immediate. However, retirement investment is difficult because future needs are unknown.

    Inflation, declining personal health, loss of a spouse, increasing cost of retirement housing or assisted living, leisure activities during retirement, and many other issues make retirement investment one of society's highest priorities.

    You will need to evaluate this area carefully. The typical Christian response is to assume that a full retirement package from employment and investments is God's way of caring for His children. The Christian community is reticent to reevaluate that premise by applying Scriptural passages such as Matthew 6 to our future financial planning.

    If your goal is to live by faith, at some point you must ask God for direction regarding your investments (or pension) and your willingness to trust Him to provide for you during your retirement years. This does not presume that you must forego pension or insurance benefits. It simply means that you must allow God to direct your decisions.

    This is not a place to act foolishly or in response to others' suggestions. Yet, retirement programs may be—for many believers —one of our most deeply entrenched functional substitutes for God.

    Believers have become increasingly dependent on government provisions for their personal well-being. Government-sponsored retirement programs, health care, and housing tax benefits affect almost all believers in this country. Others may also use government financed housing loans, education loans or grants, housing programs, unemployment or disability benefits, welfare assistance, and so on. Many believers own or work for businesses that are dependent on government subsidy.

    In recent years, the Church has become involved in state and federal politics because believers have become so largely dependent on government finances.

    Society has become increasingly litigious. Civil courts are routinely used for personal gain. Believers have not been immune to this abuse.

    A believer living by faith must very carefully evaluate personal dependence and use of our legal/governmental institutions.

    The four institutional categories of medicine, insurance, investment (or pension), and legal/government intervention are by no means a comprehensive list. Our society is rife with social institutions that become functional substitutes for God. If you want to live by faith, you will need to evaluate everything in your life that has the potential for replacing your trust in God.