April 2010 Newsletter
Below is an adaption from a couple of emails on a small discussion regarding universal health care. I’d like to post this and see what kind of discussion it’ll generate.
Two Ground Rules:
1. Write nicely; don’t be mean.
2. I’m a pastor and therefore solely concerned (at least here, in this discussion) with debating this issue on moral grounds. Stay away from other related issues (i.e.: funding, “flaws” in the system, abuse, etc.)
Is Health Care a Right or a Privilege? -and-
IF Health Care is a right, is government-managed universal health care the moral mandate?
I recently read an extremely one-sided article discussing the (perceived) church’s stance on universal health care. I’ll concede the factual side of the article in a moment and spare you all the hateful ramblings. But, I would like us to consider the ramblings because I believe they highlight an area of biblical omission for some believers. The omission: Christians who oppose universal health care solely because of what it costs are in error and simply adopt the slices of Jesus they find most convenient. I write on this topic primarily out of concern for those who adopt every stance of any political party without first considering the biblical perspective.
I agree with the Left when they charge the Right of occasionally misappropriating Jesus; however, I find it dually hypocritical when they refuse to acknowledge the areas in which they do the same thing.
Republican Christians can no more ignore the poor-loving and compassionate Jesus than can democratic Christians ignore the Bible's clear stance on other social issues (sanctity of life, homosexuality, etc.). We stray from God's intent for our lives when we check our faith at the political door as if it were designed to be one of many factors influencing our decision-making as opposed to the all-encompassing filter through which we see reality. How much it costs or what it will do to my tax rebate is of much lesser (if any at all) consequence. If it is the Right thing to do, do it. For Christians, Right is defined by God--not society or the price tag.
My problem with the mixing of faith and politics is this incessant urge by both sides to drag Jesus into the argument as if He would be marching in a picket line if He were on earth today. Sure, He has a stance: it's plain, clear, and undeniable if we simply get our nose in the Bible. But, the blanket devotion to the party line by people claiming to be followers of Christ is morally irresponsible.
The Bible would much rather someone deny a Christian affiliation than claim that Jesus would deny any welfare or health care to the needy OR that the Bible tolerates a homosexual lifestyle, abortion, etc.
I’ll give Christ the last word:
Matthew 25:34–40 (NLT)
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world.35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home.36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’ 37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink?38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing?39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’
Bill, I think Ground Rule No. 2 will significantly cut down the amount of debate, because opponents of universal health care cannot defend the indefensible. As far as I can see, there is absolutely no moral argument that a Christian can make that opposes providing health care for all. I think the above excerpt from Matthew really shoots down any attempts at such an argument.
ReplyDeleteBefore about a week ago, I don't recall ever hearing the moral or spiritual dimension of the argument for universal health care. I think its supporters do themselves a disservice by not approaching the issue from that angle. If those members of Congress who consider themselves Christians really stopped and thought to themselves, "what would Jesus do?" in regards to health care, I suspect a lot of them would change their minds.
First things first: medical care is a service that satisfies a need, it is neither a right nor a privilege. Many other goods and services fall into this category, and history and economics will both tell us that they reach the largest number of people, in the highest quality (or at least quality as perceived by the consumer), and for the lowest cost when provided free of 3rd party intervention. American medical care stinks on ice and it's about to get worse in these regards. As for the more important Biblical issue:
ReplyDelete"...I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink..." Pay close attention to just who is doing what. Notice how The Bible does not say, "I was thirsty, and you used force to coerce others into giving me a drink." This is what socialized medical care plans do; they force others (violently and under pain of death, for if I choose not to pay, I go to prison, and if I resist going to prison enough, I will be killed) to forfeit property to a government who "provides" the care. The Bible is quite clear about using force to seize the property of another (Exodus 20:15).
The Bible is also quite clear about taxes (Luke 20:25). A unique attribute of the United States is that rule of law though The Constitution, elections, elected officials, and those appointed by elected officials determines what is "Caesar's." Haggai 2:8, amongst many other passages, explains what is God's.
I would be the first to say that Christians in general don't do enough to give aid to those in need. I would like to think that if Christians had more control over the property granted to them by God, they would do better, but I don't know that this is true. What I do know is true is that Christians can't be stewards of property stolen from them.
----In fairness to Mark’s response: I added a 2nd question to the posting after his reply. I assumed the discussion would automatically turn toward the public vs. private aspect, but Mark’s response made me realize my ground rules may restrict that from happening.----
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mark. I agree that denying health care cannot be supported on Christian moral grounds.
I’m not convinced that government-mandated health care is the solution. I can’t support it for two reasons—both being ethical (the first more than the second).
1. -You can’t legislate morality. Laws put boundaries in place to define what a society will accept. They place a floor on appropriate behavior. The ceiling comes from the moral realm, and that emerges subjectively per the individual.
a. ---In strictly Christian terms, morality has primarily an eschatological goal: it benefits the one doing the deed by molding her/him into a specific kind of person. That person is or is not prepared to fully enjoy (note: I am not saying ‘inherit’) eternity based off of their development of the individual conscience. That conscience develops with each purely motivated good deed.
b. ---Mandate the deed and you reduce the person’s ability to “be better” as a result of doing it. Which leads to an argument for my second reason.
2. -You tend to get no more than what you expect out of someone (the Army reinforced that on a near-daily basis). When you put a floor on someone’s behavior, you rarely find them reaching for the ceiling.
a. ---Tell someone they can only drive 55 mph. You may find them driving 55 (or more), but you only find them going slower if they have an internal motive (i.e.: self preservation).
b. ---Tell someone their taxes are 10%. You may find them paying the full amount, but you never find them giving more than required.
c. ---Government-mandated/regulated healthcare is no different. I believe people deserve to have their basic health needs met, but I do not believe the government will do that best for them. Private organizations/charities operating on internal motives stand to outshine bureaucratic solutions in nearly every realm.
d. ---Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, and numerous areligious charity hospitals provide free or low cost healthcare already—because they want to. St. Judes, Ronald McDonald, Shriners, etc.
e. ---I have to agree with the previous anonymous post: Christians (and all morally motivated citizens) in control of their own resources stand to do much better in providing health care than the US government. Federally supported faith-based initiatives combine desire and funding to produce true care.
f. ---On the moral aspect (in keeping with Christ’s words in Matthew): the people were blessed because they individually chose to care to the sick. Tending to the sick by simply paying your mandated taxes has no additional moral benefit than simply giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s.
You can't legislate morality? Really? I agree, yet we do it all the time. Are you willing to pose the same argument out when the topic is abortion? You can't have it both ways. If Christians and the church were doing their jobs as well as we should, we wouldn't need government interference in either area.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't take a profoundly wise person to tell the difference between theft and charity; I don't even think it takes a particularly literate person, yet I see all to many educated Christians confusing the two on this issue.
ReplyDeleteStealing from some people to provide for others is theft, which is obviously sinful, no matter how charitable the thief claims it to be.
Charity is done voluntarily. Socialized medicare care is not voluntary. Socialized medical care steals from millions, taking property from people by force that God has entrusted to them. It is not charity. It is theft. Theft is a sin. Socialized medical care is sinful.
I love it when taxation is characterised as theft. Anyone who says that automatically sets themselves up for failure. If taxation is truly theft, which is also a sin, then logically, we should get do away with all of it. After all, the less sin in the world, the better, right?
ReplyDeleteOh, wait! What's going to fund the education of our children? What's going to pay for the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges? What is going to provide for the common defence of the American people? Since this is all derived from taxation, does that mean it's all sinful? Unless you're also against the use of taxes for the above purposes, your original argument is logically fallacious.
You don't really feel that taxation is sinful, you just feel that you're overtaxed. You know what else is a sin? GREED.
I wish this had a quotable function, so I could respond to bits and pieces of Bill's reply one at a time. As it is, I will do my best.
ReplyDeleteBILL: a. ---In strictly Christian terms, morality has primarily an eschatological goal: it benefits the one doing the deed by molding her/him into a specific kind of person. That person is or is not prepared to fully enjoy (note: I am not saying ‘inherit’) eternity based off of their development of the individual conscience. That conscience develops with each purely motivated good deed."
MARK: This almost sounds Catholic, Bill. Perhaps there's hope for you yet! j/k
But seriously, I would argue that the performance of good deeds not only edifies the person performing the good deed, but it also serves as a positive example to those around that person.
In reply to the argument that the federal government is not the best possible agent of providing health care to all: you're probably right. The religious charity hospitals mentioned above would probably do a better job of it. But I would also say the federal government is the only entity capable of marshalling the necessary resources to remedy the massive problems found in our health care system.
It's much the same as the "public vs. private education" argument: we can all agree that all children benefit from and need an education. But there are simply not enough private schools to serve every child in the United States. It is common knowledge that students at private schools routinely outscore their public school counterparts. But they also get to pick and choose who they want, while the public education system is, well, public. That doesn't mean that public education isn't a success. I know I learned quite a bit in public school, and countless others have, too.
I have a feeling that the "public vs. private health care" argument would end up the same way. If you compare the results, private health care > public health care, but public health care >>> no health care. To me, it's a simple matter of providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Regarding Bill's take on the moral aspect found in Matthew, I would ask if it is no less blessed for those of us who, while we cannot tend to the sick as well as a doctor, want to make availability to see a doctor possible for all in our society.
After reading most of the posts I was getting excited and the wheels in my brain were turning until I saw Mark's post, well said... well said.
ReplyDeletePeter, you are smarter then that. Those simple arguments aren't your style. Just because your taxes go to something you don't like its not stealing. My taxes go to something I am fundamentally against yet I still pay them.
Ok, this is as honest as I get. What bothers me the most about all of this debate is the hypocritical value we place on human life. While we march in protest against abortion, we march in favor of war. We will raise our fist against health care but we won't dare lend a hand to the sick (I won't even mention our wallets.. I might get hung).
I believe that the teachings of Jesus tell us that we need to first love God then love everyone else. I have a hard time following Jesus and not loving all life... everyone. This is why I have a hard time with the whole healthcare debate. I want everyone to have their needs met. I believe Jesus taught us to live this way. Now I know that EVERYONE'S needs are never always going to be met.. but thats not an excuse for not trying. Now the Church is in a rough spot because as a majority we might stand against healthcare reform, but as a majority we aren't willing to pick up the bill. So I say... put up or shut up. I am totally for going against the government taking control over healthcare if the body of Christ was willing to take up the task. Seriously? Which one of you are willing to head this up?
@Matt: Legislating morality doesn't apply to the abortion debate. The anti-abortion stance is an example of a law demanding/enforcing minimum behaviors within a society. It's no different than laws prohibiting murder (in this case, absolutely no different), or theft, arson, etc. Without these laws (and others like them), libertarianism would descend into anarchy.
ReplyDeleteLegislated morality might force the mother into abstinence (possibly an arguable position, but off topic) or make me pay for the single mother's hospital visits. Again, neither of these are anti-Christian. But, forcing people to "do good" only works as long as the bureaucracy is able to "procure" funding and maintain control.
Big government's legislated morality always reveals a distrust in the people.
That's why the Constitution only promised the PURSUIT of happiness. The government protects my liberties (by enforcing a 'legal minimum' in terms of behavior); it's then the responsibility of the people to produce the greater good (i.e.: happiness).
Devil's Advocate on the "necessity" for government interference: Is that "necessary" interference not impeding the church's ability to fully "do our jobs" as we should?
-------------
@Mark: Yes, it is equally as noble to wish to provide for the sick even though you are not a doctor yourself. But, that doesn't make the logical/moral jump to allow for forcibly "Robin Hood-ing" to bring that about.
-------------
@Randal: Being convicted about something strongly enough to go to war over it is not the same as "marching in favor of war." Being WILLING to go to war is marching in favor of what's right, and being willing to support those convictions to the fullest extent.
Living without anything you believe in well enough to fight for it produces, in my opinion, a shallow individual. In a perfectly (moral) world, nobody would LIKE war, but everybody would be WILLING to stand up for what's right.
In keeping with your example (something about an inconsistent value placed on human life...)--that is precisely the reason war stands as a necessary evil. There are those among us who do NOT value human life, and--at times--war becomes the only means necessary of stopping them from mass violations of that humanity.
@Mark: Yes, good deeds DO serve as a positive example to those around them, but they are only a secondary goal for Christian morality (hence, the "primary" eschatological goal). It is much the same as the intent of miraculous healings in the Bible: the primary intent was simply to give the healer credibility as a genuine messenger of God. That the person was healed physically was a secondary benefit.
ReplyDeleteAnyway...I question (merging into my personal opinion here) the positive moral impact a forced good deed has on anyone. Telling my son he has to apologize to someone he's wronged doesn't produce a sorrowful boy. I'm probably digressing at this point though.
Thanks for your comments, Mark. They always keep me thinking.
Well war is a little off topic here. I was more just pointing out our inconsistency in the views we hold about the sanctity of life.
ReplyDeleteBut since you came back with the war issue, I'll bite. I know that some believe that there is such a thing called "just war", but you won't find that anywhere Jesus speaks. I believe that going to the fullest extent of your convictions isn't putting your life on the line to kill someone but Jesus taught us to put our life on the line to love someone. I know this opens a whole can of worms, but violence promotes more violence. Jesus' life taught us that violence is never the answer, the people of His kingdom are going to look and act different. This idea of a necessary evil is totally ludicrous. So we do what is wrong in order to accomplish what is ultimately right? The ends justify the means? Play that out to the fullest extent and Osama Bin Laden was totally within his right.
People always throw out the world war 2 story of the Nazis to justify violent actions. If we wouldn't have stopped Hitler he would have killed many more people. There is no easy answer but living a life of non-violence doesn't mean we sit back and let mad men run free, but the idea that violence is the only option is assuming people are beyond redemption. I believe that there is another way to approach evil in this world.
Interesting quote. "Obama is not a brown-skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare; you are thinking of Jesus."
ReplyDeleteI can appreciate (and completely agree with) any attempt to avoid war if ever possible. But, we don’t have a biblical rationale/mandate for declaring all war as immoral.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with rejecting the term “necessary evil.” It’s not a theologically accurate phrase by any means. If something is necessary (by biblical standards), then it must be free of evil. The “evil” tag simply comes along with man’s (necessary) aversion to violence, tough decisions, etc.
Jesus’ life did not teach us that violence is never the answer. He employed violence himself when necessary, and saw nothing “evil” about his actions (Mark 11.15, ff). God used warfare throughout the OT (the book of Joshua has unending examples) to drive out the evil. God/Jesus is the architect of hell—a necessary judgment for the evil ones among us. There is nothing “non-violent” about hell.
I don’t fully agree with “the end justifies the means,” but—regardless—that could never apply to Osama. For that theory to even begin to be relevant, the END has to be morally justifiable first.
In Mark 11, the story about Jesus and His rampage through the temple is a far cry from violence to human beings. I recall it says He threw some tables and chairs around. I don't see any mention of him hitting anyone. How can we over look Matt 5:38ff?.
ReplyDeleteI struggle a lot with the OT view of God. We see a very bloody picture of God and His people going to war, what seems like all the time; and in contrast with Jesus' view of physical violence of the NT.
In my personal opinion I can't set aside Jesus in the NT and His message of non-violence, because He does have a message of non-violence. You see it not only in His sermon on the mount, but also in His life avoiding physical confrontations. For example in Matthew 26 when Peter draws his sword, not something Jesus was cool with. People who live by the sword die by the sword, His kingdom looks different. Even Paul said that our war (struggle) is not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual powers (Eph 6:12)
Now, about the OT. We follow a little bit, if anything, from the OT. Not that we should ignore it but comparing the USA or any country to God's plan for Israel is really stretching it. When was the last time you heard God calling us (as His Church) to wipe out a certain people group? And rarely is God ever concerned with the agenda of any governments war.
God's plan no longer resides in a people group. God's people are spread all across the world, His kingdom knows no boundaries. What purpose would war serve in His kingdom today? Who would be our leader? So, if we were to pledge oursleves to serve in the US armed forces, would we as Christians follow the lead of God or our commanding officer's entrust? To who's moral compass would we align ourselves. And, what if the actions of our country were no longer moral, could we just back out? War is messy, and for it to work out, even in the OT, it happened on God's terms.
Osama's ends are morally justifiable, from HIS point of view. Just like OUR ends are morally justifiable from OUR point of view. Do you think all people play on the same moral playground that we do? And can you seriously believe that our government is morally justified to its end? All moral grounds are completely subjective, except those God gives us. And I haven't heard God say anything about killing Osama, nor have I found anything like that in the Bible.
By the way, I am enjoying this conversation. I don't believe my mind is made up in any way about war or universal medical care. I seriously welcome counter points and enjoy iron sharpening iron.
ReplyDeleteAbortion is unbiblical, therefore we must not support it at all costs. Nothing will change unless we stand together as one voice.
ReplyDeleteThat is why i signed the www.mahattandeclaration.org
I joined 400,000 others in signing this document to make a stand against abortion! This is how change happens!
I don't believe there's any separation of truths. There's no religious truth, scientific truth, mathematical truth, historical truth, etc. The set of all true things is the set of all true things, and included in that set is that God made the world, Jesus, God's only Son, was born of a virgin, lived a life free of sin, performed many miracles, and proclaimed truth to both Jew and Gentile. He was crucified at the behest of the Jewish leadership by the Romans; He arose and eventually ascended to Heaven a short period later. Also, 2+2 = 4, given the proper axioms.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the truth concerning God, I trust the Bible and Divine Revelation alone (I see no Biblical reason to assume that God wouldn't reveal truth(s) today, especially considering the Bible provides means for testing false prophets, for an example that I have not examined fully: (http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/FalsePro.pdf)). Unless I am the one revealing truth on the behalf of God or have fully tested the revelation, I speak only where the Bible speaks and am silent where the Bible is silent on such matters.
Because there is no separation of truth and the Bible is not only true, but true concerning The Almighty, truths that arise Biblically must be held above all others. Not that they are more or less true than other truths, but that those truths must be considered more reliable any other thing believed to be true. I believe 2+2=4 just as I believe God led Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. However, 2+2 only equals 4 only given the proper axioms. God led Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem regardless of any assumptions or man made rules (and, in fact, in spite of some man-made rules). Therefore, any Biblical justification for an action (or against it, government or otherwise) trumps all else, due to its reliability.
I see plenty of Biblical justification for charity (the passage from Matthew in the post, Galatians 6, amongst others). We also know from the book of Acts that at one point the early Church operated in a very communal manner.
Absent from all of the above is the use of force to coerce such actions, any communal behavior with non-Christians (though charity toward them is expected and encouraged), and any implication that Christian collectivism should extend beyond a time hundreds of years ago when Christians were persecuted both economically and legally. To say otherwise is to speak where the Bible is silent.
Using force to wrest the rightfully gained property of another, entrusted to him by God (Matthew 25:14-30), is stealing. Stealing violates the word of God (Exodus 20:15). This is what socialized medical care does.
If there is something I've overlooked or gotten wrong, please point it out. If you wish to tell me I must be greedy or simply dismiss this as simple, you've already lost the argument.