The recent bouts of earthquakes and other natural disasters have definitely taken a lot of air time, but especially since a few days ago the current hot topic in the US is definitely the Health Care Bill. I have read many arguments for and against, but few, if any, have approached the issue from a strictly Biblical stance, so I thought I would make an attempt. Because there are many theological implications involved in this discussion, it is a little longer than normal.
I don’t think that there is much argument in the church over whether Christians should be compassionate to the needy. Plenty of verses deal with this, from the the command to be generous to the poor in Deuteronomy 15:
I command you, saying, “You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.†(Deuteronomy 15:11)
To the release from slavery in the same chapter:
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14)
To the command to do good “to all people”:
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Galatians 6:10)
Probably the main verse which calls Christians to care for the poor and needy is:
Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)
In fact, this point cannot be stressed enough. Consider the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities utterly destroyed for Lawlessness of every kind, but see what caused them to be given over to their own sinful ways, which ultimately led to their complete destruction:
Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)
Throughout the Bible there are commands to Christians to care for the poor, to care for the needy, and especially, to care for the widow and orphan. So I don’t think it’s useful at all, or correct, to argue that the poor are “undeserving”, or that, since they wasted their lives in unhealthy ways that we are not required to help them. “Let us do good to all people”, it says.
In arguing for public health-care, many Christians focus entirely on this point, and I think this is due to the churches recent lack of involvement in caring for the needy. This lack of involvement has not always been the case, many hospitals were at one time largely funded by churches—usually a whole denomination would pool resources together, since a single church would not have the necessary backing—as is evidenced by such largely known hospitals as the Methodist Hospital common to many towns, among others.
But a distinction must be made, for in reading various blog posts I noted that many Christians say that a government health care system is an acceptable substitute for Christians helping the poor. In fact, one blogger said that it was right to fund health care from taxes, because taxes were equatable with tithing:
“So not only is universal health care right, but it is right to fund it out of taxes (“tithesâ€).” (Khanya)
This equating of taxes with tithes is certainly esoteric, and most assuredly wrong: Biblically, tithe was always directed toward the church and never toward a government. Taxes of various kinds were levied throughout the whole of the Bible, but those funds always went to the government, while the church has always been the one commanded to care for the poor.
Governments may or may not be able to successfully assist the poor, in some countries it is done within a tolerable degree, but in other countries it is done so poorly that the whole idea should be scrapped. This inconsistency only serves as a reminder that our view of whether a government should do something cannot be based on whether a government is able to do something, or on how well the government can accomplish it. Our standard must be the Bible, and it alone.
Which brings me to the most important point: Public health care is entirely consistent with a theology that rejects the authority of the Bible to the area of civil governance. This point cannot be stressed enough, and will, I hope serve to bring attention to the fact that modern “Christianity” has rejected the Bible as the ultimate authority in every area of life.
Most people who argue against the public health care bill (even most Christians) do so from humanist principles. “It will never work, governments are too bloated.” “Taxing the people to pay for irresponsible behavior only yields more irresponsible behavior.” The list of quotes grows tall rather quickly, but all of them are lacking a true and consistent Biblical approach—all of them rely only on man-centered logic.
The arguments supporting public health care are only slightly better, and are marked frequently by such statements as “I believe…” and “I don’t like…”. At best, they might say something like “Jesus cared for the poor and sick, therefore we also should”, or perhaps “the general theme of the Bible is to care for those less fortunate”. This statement seems to summarize the whole argument:
The Gospels overflow with stories of Jesus caring for people in need–not only the fortunate few, but whole gatherings of people–hungry masses, gaggles of children, and scores of the infirm. In one instance, Jesus healed too many to count (Luke 4:40). If we take Jesus seriously, then our obligations to the naked, hungry, beaten, suffering, and vulnerable are hard to deny. (Washington Post, Aana Marie Vigen)
This argument, if only this section is analyzed, cannot be refuted. Jesus cared for the needy, for the sick, for the poor. As mentioned at the beginning, Christians are commanded quite clearly and in multiple passages to care for the needy. However, the argument goes “proof A, therefore B”. More specifically, “Christians must help the needy, therefore governments must help the needy”.
But this argument is entirely illogical as defined–it would be just as reasonable to say “foxes need food, therefore computers need food”. There is no necessary connection between the two, and the argument is particularly interesting when it is noted that the people arguing this point are also the same group of people who argue in favor of the “separation of church and state”.
Summary:
In part one we see that the Bible is ultimately clear that it is an individuals responsibility to care for the poor and needy. This personal responsibility is shown throughout all scripture, from James 1:27 stating that we must “visit orphans and widows in their trouble”, to Deuteronomy 15:11 which says “you shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land”. We also saw that the general argument for government control of “caring for the poor and needy” is illogical (although to be sure, other more careful arguments do exist) and faulty.
In the next part, I hope to explore more thoroughly the Biblical arguments in support of government run health care, and the theological errors (some of them stemming from clear heresy) which drive these arguments. Finally, since we apparently now have government run health care, I hope to present some Biblical principles for how we as Christians can go forward.
Thanks for the article Toby! I’m looking forward to the future parts. Please email me as you did for this one.
I loved everything. But I did want to comment on the ‘undeserving poor’ aspect though I realize this is not your primary focus. Some Christians (and churches) that use the term may truly not be acting properly towards the poor. But some people and churches may use the term and yet be acting properly. The question is, ‘Can there be such a thing as an undeserving poor person?’. Or is it the case that no person can truly be undeserving? And of what are we speaking of them deserving or not deserving? Love? Compassion? Money? Food? Job? Free health care?
You quoted ‘let us do good to all people’. Does that mean we must perform all of the good we possibly can for all people? What does it mean if it doesn’t mean that? Does it mean instead that we’re not to show bias towards or against certain peoples based on our prejudices (i.e., emphasis upon all as a type – not referring to every individual)? How can we fulfill this command to ‘do good to all people’ and yet withhold food from the man that Paul says is unworthy of it (i.e., “if a man should not work neither should he eat.”)?
If we have an obligation to meet the needs of every poor person on earth how can we best do it? And what do we do if the poor we’re helping won’t work as Paul warns?
I just wanted to raise all of these questions. Most churches in our society refuse to address these questions. They would probably accuse me of being hard-hearted even by asking them? Am I?
In my opinion, if you’re going to treat the Bible like a legal document that is applicable to modern-day Gentile governments, then you should treat the laws as, well, laws. I’m not sure whether every specific item in the new health care bill lives up to the Old Testament, but there are clear precedents in scripture for the law to take what belongs to me and appropriate it for the poor. (Lev. 25:35, Ex. 23:11)
@Rod: Those are all very good questions which I will try to cover more thoroughly in either the second or third post on the issue. I think those questions can be summarized into a general question of: Who exactly are the “poor”, and how exactly are we to help them?
@Abraham: I do desire the Bible to be treated, at least in some sense of the term, as a legal document. David says “the Law of the Lord is perfect”, and “how I love Your Law”, and so on. The Law is a good law to follow.
When you say “…there are clear precedents for the law to take what belongs to me…”, I would like to know what you mean by that. I agree that the Law commands us, as individuals, to do certain things which help the poor. However, it seems that you mean that those verses give the civil government authority to take what belongs to me.
However, just because “the Law” commands me to do something, does not necessarily mean the government has authority to do that thing: E.g., the Law commands me to give my tithe, does the government now have authority to take my money and give it to the church? So just because the Law commands me to do certain things for the poor (excellent verses, by the way) does not automatically give the government any authority to force me to do those things.
In fact, both of the verses you mentioned ( Leviticus 25:35, Exodus 23:11) are quite clearly a personal responsibility: “you shall help him”, and “you shall let it rest”, etc. (emphasis added)
Anyway, in the next section I hope to examine more thoroughly the arguments that Christians have made in support of government run health care, and hold those views up to the Bible for examination.
I was quite prepared for you to use the ‘personal’ aspect of this passage, but you have absolutely no ammunition here. After all, it is not for us to decide which passages are supposed to have personal application in the life of the individual, right? Aren’t we asking how scripture applies to governments? Well does it or doesn’t it? And if you’re going to say, “some parts do, and some parts don’t,” then you’re on very shaky ground indeed, for if there are any parts of scripture at all that are not applicable to national governments, then the laws laid out in Deuteronomy, along with repeated specific statements about how those laws are intended for Jewish people to follow *after* they reach the promised land, are among them.
Of course you’re right though – these passages are meant to be instructional to the individual. In fact, this is the purpose of scripture. You’re absolutely right about what David said: “The law of the Lord is perfect… converting the soul.”
@Abraham: I guess I’m not sure what you mean in your first paragraph. Hopefully the points you bring up will be addressed in the next post, but if you could clarify them here a bit more I will be sure to address them specifically.
Hey Toby,
So couple of things: first, I think it’s dangerous to separate individual responsibility against the law applicable to all. I’m not a Hebrew scholar, but there is a possibility that the ‘you’ used there could be referring to Israel as a whole in the law.
Secondly, if the church was filing this void then there would be no need for the government to do so. Since there is a need why wouldn’t God use this to provide for the needs of those He loves? He used a donkey to speak to Balaam, why not the democrats to speak to the church? I am not saying this is a tithing issue, I am instead saying this may be God’s way of providing for those who we have been neglecting.
One thing I have been learning lately is God’s heart for the poor. A staggering 54% of homeless people that seek medical attention (in Canada where we have universal health care) have a mental illness as opposed to 5% of the general population (Canwest News Service). People who cannot hold a job, who have no one to look after them or who leave a home situation that is so bad the streets are better. According to CBS News the majority of people this is assisting are actually our age, college students who get kicked off their parents insurance and cannot afford their own.
Another thing: we may have to wait longer in Canada (not by much – I got an ultrasound same day non emergency) but people do not lose their homes, go bankrupt, or have to ignore serious medical conditions.
@Sarah: I’m not sure what you mean about separating “individual responsibility against the law applicable to all”, so let me just clarify by saying: The whole of the Law of God is entirely applicable to all people, both those in government authority and those in “normal” life. Some of the Law also talks about what is to happen to those who disobey the Law, such as a certain restitution for theft, etc. The “government”, whatever form it takes, is just as bound to every part of the Law as the common person, so the government may not steal or murder, for example. (Note that, if the government had Biblical authority to lay a tax, it would not be stealing.)
Re: your second point: It is not the governments role to care for the sick and needy, it is the individual Christians duty. Yes, God can use the government to provide for those that Christians have failed to provide for, but that does not make it “right” or “okay” for the government to be doing that. The poor are a big issue, and the Bible lays out some clear directions for how we are to deal with them, something I will cover more in the third post.
Toby, my statements in that first paragraph were perfectly clear. And no I won’t try to restate them in a way that is easier for you to refute logically.
@Abraham: No need to be snippy, I just don’t understand the sentence “And if you’re going to say…” It’s a little long for my frazzled mind to grasp clearly.