Health care is a moral issue.
Unfortunately, I haven’t heard anyone say this…not even the Christian community. I’m not trying to be original here; I’m just saying that I haven’t heard anyone talk about it this way. Sure there are financial implications. But ultimately, I think this is something that needs to be removed from the political/ideological/financial arena and placed squarely in the morality arena.
Let me pick on some people – or groups of people – for a moment. Thirty years ago the Republican party became the “party of morals” and they’ve run on that platform ever since. They were God’s party – the party that defends America, the Bible, and family values. ”Conservative” and “liberal” became extremely polarizing words, often used as insults, and became more and more difficult for a person to avoid aligning themselves with one side or the other.
It’s the Republican Party that has also become systematically opposed to providing health care for all Americans. The basis of their opposition is that this would create a bigger government, and that’s bad. The problem for most so-called “conservatives” (as I’ve said before, I really don’t like breaking people into such categories because of the subjectivity inherent in them) is that the moral issue of health care at this point in history is in conflict with a core belief in small government. So when push comes to shove which way are the political conservatives going to go: morality, or political philosophy?
But I will readily admit I am not a politician, I am a minister and primarily a follower of Jesus. So my analysis and opinions are predominantly shaped by an application of Biblical teaching before political ideology. And from that perspective, I’m left to conclude that the ongoing debate over the American health care system is a moral issue. I also recognize that because I’m so hell-bent on applying Scripture, that makes me a political liberal…but why should I care what it makes me?
A few passages come to mind when I think about this. The ever-so-popular Micah 6:8, “He has shown all you people what is good. / And what does the LORD require of you? / To act justly and to love mercy / and to walk humbly with your God ” The Hebrew parallelism of those last two phrases is not adding anything, but restating or elaborating on the first part. In other words, the LORD requires his people “to act justly and to love mercy.” When that happens, we are walking “humbly with your God.” To the context, this is the formal charge being levied against Jerusalem and the reason for God’s judgement as presented in Micah. Jerusalem is failing to do this and therefore, God is punishing them (notice it doesn’t say anything about abortion or gay marriage or lack of a strong military or big government or…).
Skip ahead a few centuries to Jesus (I like this guy). Matthew 12:1-14 says this:
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
Jesus is putting Micah 6:8 into practice. He’s also quoting Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
Again, the parallelism serves to explain – rather than add to – so that “acknowledgement of God” is equated to showing mercy. You can’t really read and apply the Bible much more literal than how I am with these passages (a “conservative” trait), and yet I’m coming to a “liberal” conclusion on health care.
In Matthew 12, Jesus calls the religious fundamentalists on the carpet for living and acting according to their political ideologies – whatever they needed to do to maintain control, they did. When faced with the reality of Scripture and the expectations of God, they didn’t know what to do except plan a future assassination.
There is a very real need in this country in which millions of people cannot receive needed medical attention without placing themselves in financial ruin. Where’s the mercy in that? How can such a large segment of the American church live with itself by speaking out against universal health care out of fear of socialism and bigger government when the Bible is so clear about our need to care for all people. If the Republican Party with their evangelical, literalist base and emphasis on morals and pro-life policies really means all that, why aren’t they eclipsing the Democrats in their support for something so morally good and Biblical? How can anyone make a good, logical argument against health care, yet still uphold the Bible’s stress on mercy and justice?
Consider this my call to action for the Christian community on this issue. It’s time the church stepped up, read their Bible, and backed efforts to provide health care for EVERYONE. The Bible doesn’t say to do something only if it’s in your best interest or benefit to you (this is the common attitude of most people and entirely the product of non-Christian philosophers and thinkers); the Bible says to do something if it’s in the best interest of others, often at our own detriment.
Health care is a moral issue. Isn’t it about time we stop drawing political battle lines and freaking out about the fact that someone from the “other” party is taking the lead and simply start doing what needs to be done for the betterment of society? Oh wait…that makes me sound like a liberal socialist and that’s wrong…
——————————————————-
Later Addition:
I just came across Eugene Cho’s thoughts on the health care dilemma. Just so I know I’m not the only crazy pastor who is thinking along these same lines, here’s an excerpt from his recent blog post (damn liberals :-\ ):
I think it’s time we move beyond vilifying and demonizing one another as people who monopolize compassion or completely lack it. No one wants anyone to die or to go broke. But we have a system that can be improved, right?
My perspective is simple [while I acknowledge the situation is complex and the solutions even more so]. As a country and government, I don’t believe we have to provide universal health care. While I personally acknowledge it is a moral issue from my worldview, I have to understand that people have fundamentally different views about the role and purposes of government.
So, while we don’t have to, it is amazing to consider that as a country and as the people of this country…
We can do this.
We don’t have to but we get to. Doesn’t this contribute to our collective idea of liberties and the pursuit of happiness?
Well said, Eugene…well said.
Filed under: Bible Study, Christian Living, Church, Culture, Theology
Jason,
Praise God for your ability to put to type your thoughts. You are a prolific writer with a heart for the kingdom things of God. Keep it up.
I cried reading this because I am so on the same page. It is our responsibility as the body of Christ and the community as a whole, — shoot, just being human beings — to care for those in our community. People can call it socialism (which is not communism — people often make that mistake) if they want, but it doesn’t make it any less right.
Thanks dude. I’d like to repost to my blog if I could.
Blessings brother
boo, universal healthcare, booo…
I do agree that this is a moral issue – but ‘moral’ is a rather broad term. And before I go any further let me get this out of the way for any pundits out there: The bible is often used as a crutch in issues like this – IMO I don’t think you’ve done that in this case – but it’s easy to lean on the bible to support a position.
Being that we are keeping this in the moral arena I think we also need to consider financial responsibility within those moral guidelines. I’ve read through most of the 1000+ page house plan currently favored by the speaker of the house and I do not find it financially responsible. Parts if it I do not find ethically responsible. And the newly drafted senate version of healthcare ‘reform’ includes fines for people that choose to not hold health insurance – again something I find ethically wrong. Because the bible is about choice – otherwise God with a swipe of his hand could make use choose to love him and believe in him. Yet he doesn’t – he gave us a choice.
Choice is a interesting concept here. In both the house and senate version of healthcare ‘reform’ choice is taken out of the equation. The senate plan hasn’t been finalized in print so I can’t comment beyond the idea of fines on individuals and tariffs on communities, businesses, and organizations. But the house plan specifically provides a clause that if you are currently on a private plan and decide to leave it (through a job loss, personal decision…whatever) you have NO CHOICE but to accept the public option as your health plan (pg 16). Pages 29 – 42 outline how coverage/benefits/treatments will be determined – it also outlines that there will be no provision for an appeals process if a treatment is denied. Where is personal choice in that?
I agree we need healthcare reform. I’ve been on the provider side of healthcare for the better part of 18 years and I know how convoluted insurances are. But you haven’t seen anything until you’re a provider for a government plan. Without going to to details that would take far too long for me to type, none of use want that on a scale that would include another 50 million subscribers.
If healthcare reform is a moral issue and as a moral issue we also need to account for financial responsibility and ethical rights, shouldn’t the focus be on reforming what is currently broken rather than adding to what is already broken? I think Whole Food’s John Mackey is on the right course. His key points are:
Remove the legal obstacles which slow the creation of high deductible health insurance plans and Health Savings Accounts.
Change the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have exactly the same tax benefits.
Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
Repeal all government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors into paying insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
Enact Medicare reform. (Having been on the provider side of Medicare I cannot stress how important this is.)
Permit individuals to make voluntary tax deductible donations on their IRS tax forms to help the millions of people who have no insurance…
And address the root causes of disease and poor health.
In my mind, that’s real reform that covers a moral obligation to financial accountability, ethical standards, and the moral issue of providing for those who are unable to provide healthcare for themselves.
Craig: “If healthcare reform is a moral issue and as a moral issue we also need to account for financial responsibility and ethical rights, shouldn’t the focus be on reforming what is currently broken rather than adding to what is already broken?”
And that is an excellent question that helps to get at the heart of what I’m trying to say. The health care system in this country is broken to the point that not everyone is able to receive the care they need to receive in a way that doesn’t place a major burden upon their shoulders, potentially for the rest of their lives.
I’ve been having a lot of conversations about this today in a number of forums (blog, Facebook, in person, etc.) so I’m losing track of what I say when/where. But something I’ve said today is that the current form(s) on the table are still very imperfect and full of problems. I pray that there is some significant revisioning that takes place before the final version – and I’m sure there will be. But the basic concept I stand fully behind and because of the scale of the problem, it’s unlikely that a solution can be found that doesn’t involve the government. I remember talking with an accountant about the economy and he talking about the “depression” as a correction of economic abuses and excesses. In many ways, I think that’s exactly what’s happening with health care right now: there are some serious problems and a drastic correction is needed to get things back on track and where they need to be to benefit the maximum amount of people. But I’ve also had a growing dis-satisfaction with capitalism over the past couple years…reading too much Shane Claibourne
.
Much like what I believe Obama’s goal was last night, everyone needs to chill out about this, recognize the system’s broken, respect one another, and start working through the insanely difficult task of finding a solution. So far, there’s been more insulting and emotional distress than real dialogue (i.e. Rep. Joe Wilson). And the largest single group opposed to such reform, should really take another look at their Bibles and engage the issue from a Biblical wisdom perspective FIRST, rather than maintain a hard-line, Moral Majority, I-hate-Obama-because-he’s-a-Democrat stance. Nothing gets solved that way. I’d hate to see what council meetings are like in those churches…
Hi Jason-
I’m surprised that you don’t feel people have been making this a moral issue. It seems like everyone’s making it a morale issue and is claiming the morale high ground which is why the debate goes nowhere.
As Craig points out, the morality issue is complex. If we want to start moral fingerpointing should we then move on to our countries tendency to gorge everything (you should here Julia’s cousins in the Netherlands joke about Americans at all you can eat buffets)? I’m not sure the USA has properly wrestled with the communal responsibilities of personal restraint that goes along with something like universal health coverage. Is personal health a moral issue? A big reason why our health costs are higher than other countries is because our poor exersize and dietary habits. You can bet that as soon as people who take measures to maintain good health catch on to the fact that they are paying the same premium as someone who does nothing the moral @#$#$ will hit the fan on that one. The moral finger pointing can go on and on. We need to put aside the moral finger pointing and acknowledge that both broad perspectives on this issue have good points and start discussing the details of the best way to give good access to health care to everyone in a way that also encourages us to be responsible.
On another note. How does being hell bent on applying scripture make you a political liberal? Political liberalism and conservatism is not about one side wanting to apply Biblical principles and one side not. I can see how applying Biblical scripture would make you a personal economic liberal because it should. But how does scripture weigh in on whether big government helps or hurts when attempting to arbitrate justice. I think in some cases it does (healthcare may be one of those cases) and in others it does not.
Perhaps then the moral/ethical implications are being raised in various parts of the country. Here in pluralistic, a-moral, postmodern Portland (said w/ tongue-in-cheek) the debate has revolved exclusively around economics and political ideology. Political conservatives are hacked off because it means more taxes and it sounds socialist/liberal (just don’t tell them that Nixon brought the idea up during his term in office). Political liberals spin it as a human rights issue in the same vein as gay marriage (another issue that has nothing to do with morals in Oregon – it’s all about equality, but morals are never a part of the discussion [except from those opposed who want to see America become a theocracy in the best Old Testament sense]). So I am reacting to what I see happening in my context. The arguments against universal health care are so wrapped up in money, I often wonder what evangelical’s loyalty really lies: their Bible, or their wallet. And then when I see billboards along the freeway that read “Give me God, gold, and guns – you can keep the change.” I become even more confused. But yes, as you point out, once you start going down the “moral road” things can get even messier. My hope with this post was that readers would be encouraged to bring more consideration of Scripture into the discussion, rather than rely solely on political agendas shrouded in human rights or “God-bless-America” sheep’s wool.
The comment about a literal reading yielding a “liberal” application was directed at those who would accuse me of skewing the Biblical text in order to support a liberal idea. Again, this may be contextual, and I may have to watch myself in the future with comments like that. But here’s my explanation…
In the NW, many churches and Christians have reacted to the extreme liberalism of society by pushing the idea that God is a conservative Republican who loves America above all other countries and people. Democrats are always absolutely wrong and doomed to an eternity in hell because they’re Democrat and liberal and socialists. These same Christians also make a point of letting everyone know that the only way to read the Bible is literally – every single passage – and that it was written specifically for us today. Frankly they live their lives in fear that God is going to smite us because America allows abortions and is on the verge of permitting gays to be publicly recognized as in a legal relationship (Mishaela’s senior class was prohibited from going to Disneyland for their senior trip because they started offering benefits to same-sex partners…they opted for San Francisco instead…).
And so I included a statement about reading certain verses rather literally, yet coming to what many would consider a “liberal” application. Over the past year, I’ve begun to read the Bible more literally. As a result, I’ve come to have some struggles with various CRC beliefs and I’ve also found myself becoming more sympathetic to historically liberal political ideas. But I’m not making a conscious effort to be “liberal” or “conservative;” I’m simply trying to understand what the Bible is saying about something or what principles are being laid out that may apply to a particular issue. Sometimes that makes me a fundamentalist, sometimes a “heretic liberal.” I just don’t care anymore which camp I fall into – my top concern is remaining faithful to Scripture and following in the footsteps of Jesus.
But chances are really good I’m screwing that up on a daily basis, too.
I agree that providing to those less fortunate then us is a moral issue and that the American Church has droped the ball big time on a lot of social issues including health care. However I do not see Goverment mandated health care as the solution. First the goverment has really never done a social program well, Second the goverment is not Christian, how many in goverment are truly Christ followers? So making a biblical argument for the goverment to run this when they will not run it by biblical priciples to me is not a sound reason. The bible does not support goverment run health care, but does support each follower of Jesus to do what they can. As far as socialism is concerned, i know that it is not always the same as communisim, however socialism does not work. Individuals make us better not the goverment and your argument that the “Bible is so clear about our need to care for other people” is true it does not mean that the goverment is the correct way. Jesus avocated for us to each be responsible for others not pass that responsiblity off on the goverment. That is what I think has been our problem in America for the past few decades.
How can such a large segment of the American church live with itself by speaking out against universal health care out of fear of socialism and bigger government when the Bible is so clear about our need to care for all people
My view of government has shifted pretty dramatically in the past year. I used to hold to one of the typical views of government found in this country – although I’m not real sure what that is anymore. But what I do know, is that my view of the role, job, purpose, and goal of government seems to be different from most people I talk to (to my benefit, there seems to be a growing number of young Christians who hold the same view I do).
Beginning with the OT, God’s intention for government is to care for the people. The king’s responsibility was not to fill his coffers or expand national boundaries, but to ensure that justice was being done and that the people’s needs were being met. In other words, political parties and ideologies were not in the picture. I think the most accurate picture we have today of God’s intention for national governments is the church council/elders/deacons; the church is not a democracy in which the leadership represents the congregation, it’s a Christocracy in which the leadership is commissioned to care for the congregation by dong what is best for the people based on Biblical principles. That’s an important distinction to make that many church boards in America often mess up.
That being said, Jesus applies the same principles to political governments: the OT kings and NT Caesars and governors were set up by God for the purpose of establishing order and caring for the people. Jesus said, “Give to caesar what is caesar’s” and the Reformed worldview (which I’m coming from) considers Scripture as a whole to teach that Christians are to submit to the authorities that have been placed above them, or if we are the authority to conduct ourselves in a manner that benefits those under us the most (Eph 6; 1 Pe 2 ). No conditional statement is given in which we are permitted to stage a coup, so to speak – unless of course a government is forcing us to do something or live in such a way that is contrary to the Law of God.
Because I function with the view that government’s role is to care for the people, I vote in that way. I’m hesitant to make an accusation that many in government are NOT Christ-followers, but I’ll also affirm that the US government is not Christian. There’s no Biblical mandate that God and his people are to work solely through Christian organizations. God used the Caesar’s and the governors and the kings of the ancient world just as much as he used those who were faithful to him – and it still works that way today.
The standards of Micah 6:8, Hosea 6:6, and Matthew 12 go beyond the boundaries of righteousness. Should the burden be placed upon the shoulders of the church? In the words of Sarah Palin, “You Betcha!” But at the same time and equally so, the Church has a Biblical obligation to work for mercy and justice in every area of life. Whether or not the government has done a social program well is entirely a matter of opinion, usually (but not always) stemming from a political ideology. The only Biblical standard I can find for making such a judgement, is whether or not mercy and justice are fully served and accomplished. I have a hard time pitting church and government against one another because it sets up an “us-versus-them” mindset in which Christians especially run the risk of seeing society as inherently evil and the Church as inherently good. There are too many examples in history and today that cut big holes in both sides.
The gist of my post is this: I feel that Christians must support universal health care (regardless of its socialist tendencies) and if the government is in the best position to make that a reality, then we must support government involvement in that reality. Exactly what form the bill and the plan and extent of government involvement takes is not addressed. However, I would love to see the American church become a little more socialist in its thinking and economic practices and provide health care for everyone by itself. Wouldn’t that make a powerful statement to the world!