Health Care Debate - the Government's role, Christian's role, Church's role

[James Nored]

 

 

 

Tonight the U.S. House of Representatives passed historic health care legislation, which among others things:

• Requires most every US citizen to purchase health insurance or face a steep fine
• Requires insurance companies to not deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions nor to drop a person from being covered once he or she gets sick
• "Insures" 32 million more Americans primarily through raising taxes and cutting medicare

Without getting too heavily into the politics of this, I thought that it would be good to ask this group what they think the role of the government, individual Christians, and the church ought to be in health care? Please bring out some biblical passages on this subject

 

Thanks!

 

[Darin Hamm]

Well James says call for the Elders to pray over you in James 5. Jesus tells us to minster to the sick as recorded in Matthew 25.

I think we have an obligation as believers and as gathered believers to show love and compassion for the sick.

It will be interesting to see what happens. We currently do a monthly medical clinic for those without insurance. Well those people won't exist so I guess we will find out what we do in the future.

[Lynn S. Nored]

This question has several totally different perspectives. The Government's role in "health care" depends on the governing system in place for it's citizens. This brings up the question of the Christian's role in the governmental process of that system of government. The question of a individual Christian's responsibility towards those they come into contact with that are "sick" is one thing. That responsibility does not necessarily translate into "the state's responsibility". However, "the church" as a Christian community has a different obligation towards "their own" than that of a particular "state system" of governance.

Relative to the Government's Role for It's Citizens: Those who assert that control of "means of production" ( in this case Health Care) must be given to the "state" in order to promote "social justice" are invited to read some economic analysis. Some are Hayek, F. A. " The Road to Serfdom"; Hulsmann, J.G. "Mises, The Last Knight of Liberalism"; Mises, Ludwis von "Hunan Action" Precise economic analysis shows that both socialist systems and those that use government to "interfere" with exchanges of goods ( as in health care and a doctor) lead to more and more centralized control in order to try to prevent the inevitable rationing and shortages. This in turn creates a totalitarian government and an inefficient delivery of the good (health care). One can debate whether a Christian should be in favor of such a system of government. Does it really promote "social justice" and is this loss of freedom something a Christian should be in favor of? Should Christians be in favor of "the state" control of all aspects of your life? Note that this is NOT the same question as whether a Christian can be a Christian under such a government. Of course he can.

What is the Christian's obligation towards those that are sick? Here Christ is our example. From the parable of the good Samaritan to His healing of Jews, to the Healing Romans, it is clear Christians are to be compassionate and promote the healing and pray for those that their lives touch.

The obligation of the Church ( that is the community of Christians) is similar in that this is both one way the church can be a "light on a hill" as were the Christians in the early church ( known for their compassion towards the sick with deadly plagues). The closest example we have of a community of Christians who "had everything in common" is that in Acts 2 & 4 with the first Christians in Jerusalem. This is sometimes used to assert we should have a "communist" systems ( i.e. all means of production owned by the state and controlled by the state). However, it is noted that it is clear even here the individual property of members of the community was theirs to contribute to a common cause ( Ananias and Shapphira). Even here it clear it was the individual's choice and not a mandate to be followed to be a part of the community. In addition, there were restrictions on who could share in the common contributed possessions i.e. " If a man will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thess 2:10). This means even in the church, there are limits ( and controls) on what the church is obligated to provide to those that are "needy"

In summary: 1) There is no economic analysis that shows that government control of production ( of health care) will really result in the ends that this means intends. Rather it ultimately leads to rationing, shortages, and total government control and loss of freedom. 2) Certainly individual Christians are to be compassionate and help where possible those they can 3) The church as an obligation towards "it's own". But, even this is limited. Individual members of the community can "give" towards this common case as their individual conscious and means dictate. And, the community should withhold "giving" towards those that refuse to work towards their own needs.

[K. Rex Butts]

When our son passed away, we were left with a lot of extra medical expenses that our insurance would not cover. We could of been left with an enormous debt that would have taken us years to pay but some very generous and resourceful Christians helped eliminate much of that debt (in a variety of ways) so that what was left was a managble debt that my wife and I could pay off in a timely and affordable manner.

I share this quick story as one examply of how other Christian gave to those in need (cf. Acts 2.45). They 1) saw our burden as their burden and they 2) understood that even though benevolence budgets can serve a useful purpose, the scriptures are clear that benevolent charity within the body of Christ should not be left to a depersonalized budget. So these are two ingredients I believe are necessary for Christians to keep in mind as they ask what our (the church's) role is in helping those without adequate and/or affordable healthcare. For example, far be it that a sister in Christ suffers complications due to the inability to afford routine OBGYN check-ups.

What I am getting at is the need to see PEOPLE and not politics, budgets, etc... as the focus of our concerns.

[bobby capps]

For the Israelites the care of the nation was everyone's concern. I still think it is. The most vibrant expressions of the church right now are in monarchies and communist countries. So the church is alive and well no matter the form of government. It is above it all.

Having said that, the believers plays play a vital role in every country. The Christian businessman is to administer justice by being fair to his employees in wage and benefit. The Christian government leader is to write and enforce laws to protect the poor from the oppressor whether that be a business or another individual. The Christian community member is to be a neighbor in every Biblical sense of that word, and the church member its to do good to all especially the family of God.

The institutional church should be the equipping center for the lives above.

It is impossible to continue the comment "if the church would take care of the poor the gov't wouldn't have to." What a foolish thought. Unless of course you mean the Christians... all acting out their societal roles in to the glory of God.

[Lynn S. Nored]

It is agreed that the church can flourish under any governmental system. It is noted this is true whether that system provides for the poor or not. Logically, this means that the government is not necessarily the mechanism through which a Christian can live out his Christian obligations (in general and to the poor)

It is difficult to know exactly what the last statement is advocating. It appears, however, that this statement is advocating the government is to be the primary protector of the poor through actions of Christians in government. And, that since the church is inadequate to do so government must do so. The previous statements also indicate it is the duty of Christians to "protect the poor from the oppressor". Christians are "to be fair in wages and benefits". The sub themes seem to be: a) Unless the state dictates what is a "fair wage and benefit" b) Unless the state protects the poor from the rich ( i.e. the oppressor ) these ends will not be obtained. In this case, the ends ( being fair to employees, protection of the poor) must be obtained through the action of the state.

In light of the fact this discussion is made with health care as the primary subject the above seems to imply that unless the state dictates health care health care will be administered unfairly and with oppression. The state becomes the means for what may be laudable ends. So.... then what is really being advocated is that Charity Towards Our Neighbor must be obtained by the FORCED redistribution of wealth. But charity is that which is given cheerfully and FREELY (2 Cor. 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. ) Otherwise, it is the collective thief by the state of private wealth--- to state it strongly.

In addition, the argument that the state is to provide assumes that this is the most effective method for providing care. Economic analysis show that government control and planning is NOT the most efficient method of providing for needs (free enterprise is cite Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom" among others)

[Ernest]

Yes Mr S.Nored , i'm Ernest,from Ghana ,that is true i agree with you. A believer can help any one he/she is willing to and he /she must do it freely without any external influence.It must be given from the heart because God loves a cheerful giver.

[Larry Clark]

Over the past 60 or so years the church has slowly stopped doing the things the church was called to do and allowed the government to take up those things. I believe the church was called not only to share the gospel of Jesus Christ but to be a healing place for the sick, the wounded and the addicted. Many churches today are nice places that are more politically involved that relationally involved. They have quit speaking the truth and replaced it with a soft message that the people want to hear.

The results of the church abandoning it's mission is a BIG government that limits instead of promotes freedom.

[Ernest]

As a servant of God , you must do the work of Him who has called you. When the Chief Priest , the Scribes , and the Pharisees laid hands on Peter and John and threatened them not to mention the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth , what did they say, Peter and John asked them "should we listen to you or God " ? Beloved . do we have to speak soft messages instead of the truth? Naaa , see that we have responsibilities to perform as servants of the Most High God . We must let the people know the truth lest they are deceived and perish. Should we leave everything into the hands of politicians ? We must know that we are the light of the world , we must shine forth for the people to see the light and come to the light that when they have come and seen the good things , they will glorify the Father . We are the light and the salt of the world , without us , the world is incomplete , not tasty , there will be nothing good in the world. We must add taste and allow the light which is in us to shine for the lost to be saved without compromising , if only we know the purpose of our calling into Christ Jesus.

[Lynn S. Nored]

Larry Clark said:

Over the past 60 or so years the church has slowly stopped doing the things the church was called to do and allowed the government to take up those things. I believe the church was called not only to share the gospel of Jesus Christ but to be a healing place for the sick, the wounded and the addicted. Many churches today are nice places that are more politically involved that relationally involved. They have quit speaking the truth and replaced it with a soft message that the people want to hear.

The results of the church abandoning it's mission is a BIG government that limits instead of promotes freedom.

[Lynn S. Nored]

There is a lot of truth in the post by Larry. A large number of congregations have no ideas ( particularly large urban ones) have no idea of the number in their midst who a) are presently unemployed b) those that are in old, widowed or in need in other ways c) and those around them that are poor and needy. Instead, as Larry says, members rely on the government to take care of these "social problems". In turn this points member to the government to promote "social justice" in out society in the U.S.

There are major problems with the government imposing "social justice" . In order to do this this a forced collectivist system must be imposed. This, by design, means that an elite (whether directly or by appointing bureaucrats) must decide what the moral decisions are on "who gets what, when, and how much". This is not done by any "freewill" offerings as in done in a Christian community, but by edit.

There are at least three erroneous presuppositions for Chiristians in imposing "social justice" thorough governmental action:
a) "No man is qualified to declare what would make another man happier or less discounted' --or "take care" of his needs "The critic either tells us what he believes he would aim if he were in the place of his fellow, or in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow's well and aspirations, declares what condition of the other man would better suit himself, the critc" Only a theocratic society ruled by God can so organize such a society. Our secular society ( that decides how individuals are to engage in cooperative effort ) is NOT a theocracy. But, charismatic leaders who impose such collectivist systems believe they have been "entrusted with a mystical higher power with the office of managing the affairs of erring mankind. They alone are enlightened; all other people are either blind, deaf or malefactors. " ( Mises) b) The second erroneous presupposition is that the rules of cooperative living between a community of Christians with Christian values should be the same for the organization of secular society. This similar to a) but slightly different. Paul admonished the Romans 13: "4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. " Here capital punishment is the purview of the state where it is not the purview of the Christian community. This is not the level or responsibility of the Christian community to settle disputes among themselves. Christian conduct "enjoins on man a certain mode of individual conduct. But, it does not assert anything with regard to the problems of social organization" OUTSIDE the Christian community itself. c) The third presupposition is collecitivist methods of organization are the most efficient methods of "providing the greatest good for the greatest number". Anecdotally, one could point to any number of "government" organizations to refute this claim e.g. the post office, the license bureau, etc. However, it is economic analysis that is necessary to answer this question. Efficient economic cooperation is based upon the "division of labor". What if the most efficient division of labor? -- a) division where individuals freely engage in exchanges or b) where a central authority directs exchanges--whether health care or other in exchanges. We do not have the space for a complete economic analysis here, but a little reflection would conclude that the central authority would have to omnipotent to "direct" and thus intervene with millions of exchanges more efficiently than the free exchange of millions of individuals. Individuals will exchange labor and capital that most efficiently meets their individual needs. A collectivist system means loss of both freedom as well as inefficient meeting of needs.

So........ though Christians must take care of the poor and disadvantaged --including those who need medical care. This does not mean that government imposed care a) Has the "God" knowledge required. We are not a theocracy. b) Does not and cannot required to follow the "rules" of the Christian community nor does the Bible dictate how secular governments are to be organized. and c) Are not the means of organization to provide the "greatest good for the greatest number" .

However, the Kingdom is to be a "city on a hill" in service to others. In the first centuries, secular literature marvels at the service Christians gave to those with plague and other illnesses.

[James "Jimmy" Jones]

I think its awesome that the church with which Darin is involved provided a monthly medical clinic. I have been listening to discussions about government and church involvement a lot over the past year or so, and I am not reading anything new.

We are where we are right now, so what can the church do for social justice? do we close down the Christian universities and funnel that money towards helping the sick? Churches have a lot of money that goes towards supporting a lot of good things. However, we can (or, are) not do it all.

I like the idea of the medical clinics. should we move towards that direction? should we try to help people with their deductibles?

[Lynn S. Nored]

Isn't it just possible that the people of the Kingdom ( of which the "called out" at a particular location) are to serve the community in which they live? And, in addition, where possible, to give to help the "needy saints" in other locations where possible? No where do I find that the people of the Kingdom's primary task is to provide "social justice" to "the world". If it were, then it would seem it would be necessary to organize on a government's scale to do so. So......... if the saints in a particular community can serve their community with a medical clinic, well and good. But others may wish to serve by providing Christian education. Other by ...........nowhere do we find a "one size fits all" for service. Even here help is done with judgement. Paul indicates those that do not work should not eat. Again, a universal specific for everyone does not fit everyone.