Oct
28
2009
How Would Jesus Want Us to Think about Health Care Legislation?
Brad Green, professor of theology at Union University, has an interesting perspective.
About Justin Taylor
Follower of Christ. Editorial Director at Crossway.
Elder at Grace Community Bible Church.
Husband of one, father of three. More…
Sponsors
Blogroll
- Adrian Warnock
- Albert Mohler
- Andy Naselli
- Biblical Foundations
- Church Matters
- Cranach Blog
- Denny Burk
- Desiring God Blog
- ESV Blog
- Evangel
- First Thoughts
- Girl Talk
- In Light of the Gospel
- Jim Hamilton
- Joe Thorn
- Josh Harris
- Kevin DeYoung
- Kingdom People
- Ligonier
- Pure Church
- Radical Womanhood
- Resurgence
- Russell Moore
- Scriptorium Daily
- Stand to Reason
- Team Pyro
- TGC Blog
- The Sola Panel
- Tim Challies
- Tullian Tchividjian
- Upper Register
- Vitamin Z
- What's Best Next?
- Worship Matters
32 Comments
Thanks for the link. Brad Green sounds very reasonable.
What on earth makes Professor Green think that Jesus shares the views of American conservatives? http://post.ly/AiAb
I concur with Stan. Green sounds very reasonable.
To Dr. Green’s point about the federal powers being in violation of the Constitution: it’s technically true, but no one, Republican or Democrat, aside from a tiny minority of libertarians, are seeking to reverse that trend in the least. Both parties are actively expanding federal powers and programs, albeit at different rates. Neither is seeking to reverse the trend. The Republicans’ proposals are no more in line with Dr. Green’s reading of the Constitution than the Democrats’.
In short, we can’t blame the “liberals” since the “conservatives” are different in degree rather than in kind.
Matthaeus, you are confusing 535 people in DC with the rest of the nation. Republican != conservative.
Put another way, Republicans and Democrats are different in degree rather than in kind. But (contrary to your statement), not so with conservatives and liberals.
I like the argument that the health care legislation in question exceeds the scope of Congress’s enumerated powers; sadly, as this stage in the game, absent something like radical national repentance, the argument isn’t going anywhere. Congress has been regulating health care pursuant to the Commerce Clause for decades. No way a court is going to invalidate even the most far-reaching federal legislation.
The other arguments are exactly right. Heal the sick and help the poor, certainly. But don’t fob that responsibility off onto the federal government.
I don’t see the connection between sin and a distrust of government. Why is a government any more sinful than any other group or for that matter an individual? I cannot see this from scripture. It’s a major to say that a national government is intrinsically more sinful than the alternative mentioned (a colony). Why is one form of government inherently/Biblically more ’sinful’ than another? Why is there such a distrust of Government?
I’m thankful to God for my government. God is the one that is in charge and has put the government in place. In general my government provides and cares for its citizens under God’s common grace to humanity. Maybe I need to be an American, or more particularly an American conservative, to understand the argument Green is making. It doesn’t translate well outside of the narrow context that is American conservative right-leaning thinking.
Justice, love and mercy, that’s the heart of God’s call to the government. So I’d say forget all the political biased argument. Judge the merits of the legislation on Biblical principals.
Actually, “justice, love and mercy” are the heart of God’s commandments for individuals. We can get a lot more specific with governments: they are to “punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Pet 2:13), or similarly, to carry out the wrath of God on those who do evil (Rom 13:4). When we read the commendations of kings like David and Solomon, we don’t hear that they micromanaged the lives of Israelites, giving them everything they needed. We hear that they protected the innocent, punished the guilty, and sought societal justice.
Yes, Christians are to care for the sick and the poor. Absolutely. It’s an astounding logical leap to go from that to saying Christians must support government-run healthcare. There are a million steps between those two, and as earlier commenters have noted, there are lots of reasons to believe that more government involvement in healthcare would actually not benefit those most in need. (As I’ve said a lot recently: Go to the DMV, then the post office, and then get your passport renewed. If that’s a fun day for you, then you should absolutely support government-run healthcare.)
JMH – I’m not arguing that Christians need to support government funded health care.
My main point is this – What I take from the article is that governments are somehow more affected by sin than any other group or organisation. I just don’t see the case for this. Government is a good thing, an authority given by God in our lives. Of course they don’t always live under God’s rule, but neither do we…even as Christians. I don’t see, from a Biblical perspective (whatever about all the other arguments), that government involvement in healthcare is any more or less sin affected then big company involvement in healthcare. It could be argued that there is a direct Biblical basis for the authority of the goevernment, something I can’t argue for the medical industry.
As I said maybe I need to be an American to appreciate the argument, it’s not one that translates well to my European context. I’m quite thankful for what my government provides in healthcare (although the system does need reform). We also have a very efficient passport renewal service :-) So based on your argument I’m compelled to support government healthcare.
By the way I don’t see a disconnect between ‘justice, love & mercy’ and the specific onus placed in scripture on governments. Any authority under God – Church leaders, government, parents, should seek God’s heart first and foremost. All have specific exhortations and commands to live up to.
Ralph, thanks for clarifying. I also should have said that I wasn’t responding only to you, but to the general idea I keep hearing that because Jesus said to care for the poor, Christians who don’t back this plan are hypocrites. (Lots of people are saying this, including believers.)
The thing is, in the States we are debating a massive overhaul of our entire system. It’s not a matter of whether the gov’t is more sinful than anybody else, it’s a matter of whether the gov’t would do a better job than the system we currently have in place. In my opinion, the gov’t isn’t more inherently sinful than any other human institution, but it is demonstrably inefficient and ineffective, esp compared to the private sector. That’s why I want less gov’t involvement in healthcare, not more– I think it will be better for all concerned.
My frustration with your comments about “justice, love & mercy” and “seek God’s heart” is that those are incredibly vague statements that can be used to justify anything. That’s not what Scripture commands of the gov’t; it commands very specific things. Further, our US Constitution defines and limits the powers of the government (and incidentally, the powers it defines are very similar to what the Bible prescribes).
How is the gov’t supposed to “seek God’s heart” anyway? It’s not a Christian institution; it’s not even made up of very many believers. We have a president on this side of the pond who tends to co-op Christian lingo to baptize his political agenda, so that makes those of us who don’t agree with him pretty skeptical about such vague standards.
JMH – I see all authority on earth as coming from a soverign God, whether that’s governments, parents or Church leaders.
For any of these groups to ’seek God’s heart’ is to understand that their authority comes from God and that they must give an account to him, therefore they should desire to know what God desires (i.e. his heart). Knowing what God and acting on what God cares about is going to lead to better governments/parents/Church leaders. To me it’s not a vague statement, sorry if it came across as such.
I don’t see in scripture an exact prescription of all that a government/parent/church should and can do under God’s authority. I do see some specific admonishments and principles that are given. I believe it’s up to each authority given by God in each generation to apply God’s wisdom and seek his heart in these matters. Each will give an account to God for their actions.
I don’t see where the Bible has prescribed and limited the powers of governments to some small arena that somehow matches the American constitution. The Bibles ultimate concern is with theocracy, not democracy. If we want to use some kind of Biblical blueprint for worldly government then we should try to live in a monarchy and should certainly reject the notion of democracy. Something like England with a soverign who is under God and over the Church but without a parliament in the way would be close enough to kingly reign of the united kingdom in the Old Testemant.
Back to my original point. My frustration with the original article is the attempted argument from scripture that government is somehow more sinful and less trustful then some other organisation (e.g. the private sector).
Maybe there are good reasons to distrust the specific federal government in America..I honestly can’t argue that point. I just don’t get the article…as I said it doesn’t seem to translate outside of the context of north American conservative politics.
I do see is that the commands on Christians regarding their attitude to authority are clear enough to me that I would be slow to condemn what God has, in his wisdom, put in place. Especially where we enjoy much freedom to meet as believers and share our faith (not something to take for granted) I thank God for the government we have in Ireland, despite all their failings and there are many, not least in healthcare.
A recent study concluded that 44,000 people die in the U.S. each year due to lack of healthcare.
If there were a smallpox outbreak in Brooklyn that we knew would kill 44,000 people if left unchecked, would we be sitting around having a theological discussion as to whether the government should do something about it? No. The CDC, National Guard, et al would swoop in and solve things as best as possible, and thank God that we have that kind of protection in this country.
If you want to claim that the church alone has the responsibility to care for the sick/needy, AND oppose government efforts to help care for those people, then those who suffer and die for lack of healthcare in your community are your responsibility, and are on your conscience. Do you really want that? Do you really have the resources to care for all the sick and needy in your community? If the government were trying to restrict churches from caring for the sick, then yes, Dr. Green would have a point – but, if you argue that the church is solely responsible for caring for the needy and sick then it’s OUR fault as a church that there is a problem that the government is pressed to deal with. Don’t get me wrong – I’d like nothing more than to see all the churches in America band together, give sacrificially and provide care for everyone who needs it and cannot pay. But that isn’t reality, and absent that happening, any other entity that is caring for people’s most basic needs is doing good.
We can argue about whether or not proposed reforms will help heal the sick. We can’t argue that we should just continue to have people die because we dislike where more care is coming from. Can anyone here imagine Jesus, or Paul saying “oh, I know we in the church don’t have the means to care for all of you, but we’re going to stop the Romans from providing you with medical care because we don’t like so much Roman intervention in our society.” Please.
While I’m incredibly grateful for this country and for our constitution, the constitution isn’t holy scripture. If it comes down to obeying the original intent of the constitution or the intent of the scriptures (to care for the widow and the orphan and those in need) then christians are obliged to prioritize God’s law rather than man’s.
Your comment assumes that government intervention would somehow prevent the deaths of 44,000 people. Many of us are concerned that a government takeover of health care will actually lead to more deaths than we heave in our current system. The evidence is on our side.
One need look no further than the horror stories in places like the UK, Canada and other countires with a socialized system. A google search will point you to numerous tales where people with very treatable illenesses died due to lack of resources and an incompetent, bloated bureaucracy in countries with socialized health care.
And, as for the earlier post conending that individuals can be just as sinful as governments, I would agree. However, there is a big difference – governments can COMPEL compliance via sheer force, with all the resources available to the state. History is replete with atrocities committed for the good of the state.
Our framers, operating under the influence of a Biblical understanding of the depravity of man, created a system of checks and balances to prevent this very thing. (I realize not all of the framers were Christian, and that is not the point I’m trying to make).
I’m not a government hater. I believe government, acting within its God-ordained sphere of restraining and punishing evil, can be a means of God’s grace to us. I’m also not saying government shouldn’t play a role in reforming health care. Christian legislators like Dr. Tom Coburn have some intriguing ideas. A government run system is not one of them.
Ryan
You hit the puss infested reality that it is the fault of the church that so many people go unattended. Amen for mentioning it. It is not the governments job to be the good Samaritan it is ours (the church). I don’t have the answers and for commenting with out helping in the solution I am sorry. I felt the need to say yes it is our fault from the turn of the 20th century on the church has left its rightful place as the center of the community. How often are we at church? We pay the mortgage for using the church 24/7 but we use it once or twice a week. Maybe we can have the doors open in our churches 24/7 to meet the needs of those in our neighborhoods again. Have a 24/7 pastoral staff and hold a 10:00 pm, midnight or 2:00 am service for those who work the night shift. But I am digressing. God called individuals to serve Him lets do that.
“One need look no further than the horror stories in places like the UK, Canada and other countires with a socialized system. A google search will point you to numerous tales where people with very treatable illenesses died due to lack of resources and an incompetent, bloated bureaucracy in countries with socialized health care.”
Well, all I can say is that the horrors of the Canadian system dealt sucussfully with my daughter’s seizures, my son’s choking to death on a candy, my daughter mistakenly taking her mother’s medication, the birth of four of our children, the still born of a fifth and the miscarriage of a sixth, my kidney stones, migraine headaches, the loss of over forty five pounds, my daughter’s deafness in one ear, liver disease, high blood pressure, hypo-active thyroid, annual checkups, enlarged prostate, ingrown toe nails, polyps in the bowel, and others. We never had to wonder if we could afford the tests. We did not have to choose between getting medical treatment and buying groceries. And I’m covered when I travel to the U.S. and abroad. My stories and the stories of countless other Canadians will never make it to Google. That’s the horror.
I’m glad your family benefitted from the health care in Canada. I don’t want anyone to suffer. And, I must admit, most of the “horror stories” I’ve heard and read about are from the UK. Nonetheless, it’s simply not true that MOST of the people in the US have to choose between getting medical treatment and buying groceries. That’s propaganda. It is the exception, not the rule.
I’m not one of the rich elites, either. I’m a lawyer in a non-profit minsitry. My wife has bilateral arthritis in her hands, and we’ve sustained some hefty medical expenses. However, I never worried about some government bureaucrat telling us we had to wait 2-3 years to get her surgery. We have three hand specialists in a five-mile radius in our town of 250,000. The medical bills have hurt, but I guess I’m glad we have the freedom to direct our own care.
Do you deny that there are many, many people who travel to the US from Canada and the UK to receive care for major mecdical problems, such as cancer treatment, transplants, knee/hip replacements?
Your experience doesn’t obviate the fact that there are many sad cases of people dying of treatable illnesses in countries with socialized medicine, especially things such as breast and prostate cancer. In fact, I just read where the hospitals in the UK are in such a state of disrepair that many people actually contract fatal illnesses during their stays. There are not enough baby delivery rooms to the extent that some moms are having their kids in janitor closets/hallways.
The bottom line is that most Americans have a visceral sense that government run health care will result in higher taxes, less freedom, and more sickness and death, despite the good intentions of many who want such a system.
Dave,
The crack about groceries was not aimed at the U.S. health care system. I have never read anything about people being forced to buy health care instead of food. I made the crack because I did not have to make that choice, which certainly could have been the case if not for free health care. As a struggling church planter in the eighties I had to choose between buying groceries and paying the rent. If I had had to pay for trips to the doctor as well I simply would have gone without seeing one. I still have teeth because of a Christian dentist who did free work for me. Propaganda or not I would be very surprised if such choices never have to be made by people today. Why not ask the poor of your church about it? My not to subtle point is that if untrue propaganda really irritates you, don’t believe all that is said about health care systems that are publicly funded.
Dave,
As a UK citizen who now lives in the USA, I think it’s a gross exageration to say that “many, many people who travel to the US from the UK to receive care for major mecdical problems, such as cancer treatment, transplants, knee/hip replacements?”
I can’t speak for Canada, but it’s simply not true that many, many people are hopping on planes across the Atlantic to get hip replacements or an organ transplants. Unlike Canada (if I’ve understood their system correctly) the UK also has private healthcare so if you wanted a hip replacement and didn’t want to wait then you could pay for that if you so wished.
Ryan Hubbs said, If the government were trying to restrict churches from caring for the sick, then yes, Dr. Green would have a point – but, if you argue that the church is solely responsible for caring for the needy and sick then it’s OUR fault as a church that there is a problem that the government is pressed to deal with. Don’t get me wrong – I’d like nothing more than to see all the churches in America band together, give sacrificially and provide care for everyone who needs it and cannot pay.
Governments do everything possible to assure that churches are being squeezed out of the “mercy” business! Can you imagine what would happen if Mother Teresa were to show up in inner-city Philadelphia to try to set up a medical clinic in a church? Our “benevolent” government would shut her down in a New York minute! First of all, she wouldn’t have the required medical degree (many years of experience being irrelevant). Next would be the problem of the proper permits and zoning issues (and fees out the kazoo!) Then there’s that pesky malpractice insurance. The bloated government bureaucracy in this country would surely send even the perpetually patient Mother Teresa packing!
It’s a pity that there probably won’t be a link to an article on this particular issue from the position of the last few posters which highlights their particular perspective, but alas so it goes I guess.
Paula,
Do you have specific examples of how mercy care has been substantively hindered by our government? Yes, it’s true, if you want to write prescriptions, or refer to a specialist, you do need medical training. And, as amazing and compassionate of an example that Mother Teresa set, I would not want her to perform complex surgery or treat cancer in a patient, and would guess that she would be the first to state that she was not qualified to perform those types of treatments. For an example of the open arms that mercy care is greeted with, please see the recent story: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/18/free.healthcare/index.html. I checked the website of this organization and they accept volunteers with or without medical training – it could be a way to get involved.
Have you been involved in an effort to provide mercy care and been stopped by government interference? If so, I sympathize and fully agree that we should make those efforts as effortless and streamlined as possible. If you have not been, then I urge you to get involved in some way, not simply to stop changes that concern you, but to proactively spend your time and/or finances to help in whatever ways you can.
Best,
Ryan
Dave: First off, I didn’t assume that government intervention would save 44,000 people, but that if we knew 44,000 people were going to die from a large-scale emergency, then we would rightly want the government to do whatever it can to prevent it.
I think it’s important to remember that we’re not talking about government or no government in U.S. healthcare. The U.S. gov’t already funds nearly $1tn of our $2.4tn annual healthcare spend in this country (mostly through medicare/aid), and “private” provision is heavily regulated by state and federal governments. The important thing, I think we can all agree, is to have a system that allows for the best possible care for the most people possible.
And, with the U.S. spending nearly twice as much, on average, as other developed countries, we could and should be doing much better than we are. And that change, in the absence of a nation-wide formation of comprehensive medical care available without regard to pay, by the church or other organization, will have to be driven in some large part by changes to the system we have, which is organized and sustained in large part by government guidelines, rules, and, to some extent, funding.
If the role of government is to punish and restrain evil, how do you define evil? Is any symptom of the fallenness of the world evil? If so, then sickness and disease would fall under that category. Do you believe that governments should not fight fires? While they cause injury and death, fires are not technically “evil,” yet having a fire department serves a socially beneficial good for all of us. What about research? The government funds billions of dollars of research through the NCI, NIH, and other agencies, which have led to incredible breakthroughs in medical science that have benefitted the world over. Would you have the government cease these efforts? I just urge you to be thoughtful about these complex issues and to see the situation as more than a private vs. government debate, as the truth is more complex and challenging than that.
A Google search will also reveal many, many horror stories of the uninsured (and insured!) in the U.S. as well. I can also share stories of friends and families that I personally know.
But think on this: a country that spends far more than its peers in healthcare but ranks 29th worldwide (29th!!) in infant mortality could be being a much better steward of its resources.
Hopefully this has provided some good food for thought – thanks for your time.
Dr. Green’s argument about the constitution misconstrues the relationship between the states and the federal government. He argues that Congress cannot pass a national health insurance requirement that would be legal. Untrue. The interstate commerce power provides Congress that power. It is true, however, that any company solely based within a single state, manufacturing products or providing services solely within a state and not receiving parts or goods from another state could claim an exemption. In today’s global marketplace such businesses are rare, if they exist at all.
I do not buy into the argument that government provided health care for 10% of the population will lead to a shortage of doctors and reduce our freedoms as Americans. A man who lives in want of any basic necessity is not truly free anyway. Universal health care will, in fact, make all of us free to pursue our goals, our dreams, our business plans without the worry that a major illness will bankrupt us and destroy our future. It will make America a much happier and prosperous nation and put us back on the path to being a leader of the free world. If we cherish our freedoms, if we cherish all that is the greatness of the American promise, if we cherish our country and her great people, universal health care is the single most compassionate and conservative thing we can do for our country.
The orginal question posed was “what would Jesus want us to think about healthcare legislation?”
I would like to remind readers that Jesus was not an American and to think that we could presume to know what system He would favour is folly. At the end of the day the current system and any others that are proposed are just ways of administrating healthcare, you’re free to prefer one over the other and still be within biblical parameters.
As a UK citizen now living in the USA, I came from a country that has *socialised medicine*. I’m a commited,conservative Christian who worked as a nurse in that system, and while it’s not perfect – just as the current system here is not perfect – I find it deeply offensive to hear the constant rhetoric from some quarters that seeks to write off the UK system of administrating healthcare as unbiblical. It betrays an American-centric view of Christianity that’s unhelpful and narrow.
Sheena,
But aren’t you aware that Americans invented Christianity? Or at least what passes for it in this country. Where true Christianity is a marriage between Christ and his church, American Christianity is a marriage between the church and movement conservatism (currently located in the Republican Party).
Just kidding, of course. Your real point is well taken. Ideological conservatives will ignore any evidence of how well any government run system of health care provision works because it conflicts with their anti-government ideology. They also like to conveniently ignore the fact that the original apostles were the closest model we have to true socialists/communists. They shared everything amongst themselves and provided for each according to need. That idea is horrifying to many conservative Christians today because it embraced a view of shared sacrifice and economic equality that is considered anti-American.
The article would have been more appropriately titled, “What a Political Conservative Should Think about Health Care Legislation.” Of the four points Dr. Green makes, only one is purportedly dealing with issues that would specifically concern a Christian. I would have thought the article would have addressed moral issues relating to taxpayer funding of abortions, end of life counseling issues, and the issue of whose role it is to “do good, church or state via compulsion.
Sheena/Publius,
You seem to both miss the distinction between individual and church responsibility and government compulsion.
David,
You make a great point about the Commerce Clause. Right or wrong, the Constitutional interpretation of the Commerce Clause over the last 60-100 years would certainly allow this to go through.
Dan,
not sure why you think I don’t understand the role of the church and the individual Christian, I didn’t refer to that in my comment.
What I did say was that many American Christians are happy to conclude that the system we have in the UK is unbiblical. I think you would have a hard time persuading the vast majority of UK Christians that their healthcare system is not biblical, flawed yes, but unbiblical? I don’t think so.
Dan,
I’m not missing the distinction at all. I’m well aware of this distinction and the sad fact is that if we (the church) were providing this basic need then the government would not have to make it compulsory.
The reality is that the church cannot meet this need, except in very small numbers. There is no way that any combination of churches in this country could meet the health care needs of 44 million uninsured citizens, especially those who are not affiliated with a church. The biblical model does not work when we are discussing numbers of this magnitude.
The apostle Paul addressed a world with small house churches and attendees numbering in the dozens at most. I’m not saying that biblical commands are relativistic…we Christians still have the obligation to help others (the poor, the sick, prisoners, and the aged, and anyone else in need…WHEN we have the means to do so). For the most part, we lack the means.
That is an interesting take Publius. I think the crux of our disagreement would be here: “The biblical model does not work . . .”
Although Dr Green raises some good points, I think there’s an even simpler issue to be found.
Jesus instructed us to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves”. Anyone who thinks that a situation can be improved by adding the US federal gov’t is, at best, a dead serpent.
I was amused to read Dr. Green’s say “a step that any true liberal would find abhorrent.” I consider myself to be a classical liberal (libertarian) despite the co-opting and abuse of the word by progressives. As a classical liberal and an economics hobbyist, I strongly object to governments continued expansion into health care in America. Particularly when there are reforms that could be made that would actually meet the stated Democratic objectives of health care reform: broader coverage and cost reduction. The current bill in Congress will utterly fail to meet its objectives.
I think Dr. Green’s points are all valid and true. However, I would like to point out that he is not making an appeal to scripture but an appeal to history, constitutional law and to reason. For a “conservative” or “libertarian” Christian to do so is perfectly legitimate. Progressives can also make such appeals. Appeals to scripture will lead you to some general principles of charity, prudence and wisdom. Within those constraints, their are IMHO a wide variety of policy prescriptions, such as a single payer system or a more market or patient-centric system, for the delivery of health care services, which would not be proscribed by scripture.
Steve
That last sentence of mine is so shockingly bad I am embarrassed to call it my own. How about this:
Within those constraints there are a wide variety of policy prescriptions, including single payor or a more market and patient-centric approach, that could all be consistent with the teaching of scripture.