Common Grace, 2.74

This post is part of a series walking through the second volume of Abraham Kuyper’s Common Grace

Continuing his discussion of insurance, in the last chapter Kuyper dealt with the first two objections to Christians buying insurance. In this chapter, he engages the third objection. Namely, that the insurance industry is out for money and people are trying to cheat the system–even committing arson and murder. We know these sins, and every insurance company has dealt with them. We see how this can strike the “tender conscience.” (633-634)

But is this a good reason? Wouldn’t the same objection apply to savings accounts, or even just savings in general? Honestly, it may be that insurance has resulted in fewer sins–since we no longer have to save to leave a legacy. Or maybe not, this merits more thought. In any case, we must remember that sin with insurance is the abuse of the program, not its regular use. In this it is like marriage–itself a good thing, but regularly abused. Sin corrupts all good things–“especially where money is involved.” (636)

None of this means that insurance is guiltless here! To determine the ultimate value of insurance, we must first consult Scripture, and second weigh the gain/good against he cost/evil. The second point is easy–the advantages of insurance are so obviously greater than the miniscule evils as to not even really be worth discussion. The benefits during a disaster are clear. We’re certainly starting to see the benefits of things like pensions as offsets to old-age poverty. This offsets the sinful effects of poverty–which are far greater than the sinful effects of insurance. But! If insurance is inherently evil, whatever its good cannot be allowed.

So what is insurance?

“a creation through which the financial loss that threatens our communal life no longer falls upon the individual affected but is spread equally over all.” (638)

Obviously Kuyper’s definition hits more on our ideas about social security or welfare than insurance proper, but the point is still the same. The common bears the loss of the individual, with “loss” being translated into money and spread out. So does Scripture allow this?

Certainly we are to bear one another’s spiritual burdens, even as we likewise bear our own sinful loads. So it’s both–but with an inclination towards the communal. We must hold to both, neither denying individual responsibility nor falling into individualistic Pelagianism. For sin in Galatians 6:1-5 is

a burden/loss to bear;
something that “will weigh down each one in turn;”
not limited to the past, but will affect he future;
will be borne individually and communally.