I was trying to get at the tendencies of conservatives to error on the side of legalism, andliberlas to error on the side of ignoring the truth of Scripture. I agree, the way it’s worded isn’t clear. I had intended to do some editing work before it posted, but time got away and I miss the scheduled post date. I’ll still have to go back and do some revisions.

Perhaps you could clarify a bit what you meant by, “And as a result as prohibit ourselves from drinking beer or dancing, or we march for gay marriage and abortion “in the name of love.” It’s either one way or the other…and it’s easier than having just one or trying to explain why we love our co-worker unconditionally but can’t support the civil ceremony she and her partner are having over the weekend in Massachusetts.”

I’m not sure if it came out the way you meant it especially “and it’s easier than having just one…” What’s easier than having just one? Just needing some clarification on that.

Allen

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!

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.

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

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.

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…

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.