Tag Archives: law

On public health care (part 1)

Posted on by
10

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 (“tithes”).” (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.

Is “Natural Law” sufficient?

Posted on by
Reply

In the argument over homosexuality, people have argued to me that, since the act can be found in nature, it must be a natural thing. I think this argument is primarily a response to the argument I have heard many Christians make: Homosexuality is “not natural”, therefore it must be immoral.

However, both of these arguments are essentially arguing for the same point: What is found in nature is the foundation for morality. The pro-homosexuality side says “because it was found in nature, therefore it is morally acceptable”, while the anti-homosexuality side says “Because it was not found in nature, therefore it is not morally acceptable.”

But the implied argument, often unrealized, from the anti side is that if it were found in nature, it would be morally acceptable. Of course, both sides of the party are in a veritable pickle: If all things found in nature were somehow morally justifiable, such things as murder and non-consensual sex would be also morally justifiable, since they are found quite commonly in nature.

If we, as Christians or non-Christians, use nature as our guide for what is moral or immoral, neither of us will have any ground to stand on when we discuss homosexuality or any other action. To be fully consistent, all of us must argue from a foundation of where our authority comes from to be able to call something moral or immoral, right or wrong.

For a non-Christian, that authority comes from another religion or from an implied social contract, but a Christian must argue from the fundamental authority of God’s revealed Word, the Bible. I believe this is true whether we speak of general abstract morality, or specific actions being acceptable, or political views being reasonable.

The Law regarding homosexuality

Posted on by
Reply

In the last post, I discussed the fact that the Bible views homosexuality as a sin. The act of homosexuality is a sin, and, like heterosexual lust, it is even a sin to lust in a homosexual manner.

Of course, whether something is a moral sin and whether it is an act of criminality are two different points. The Bible says that if I lust in my heart after a woman it is the sin of adultery, yet it would be impossible to enforce a law regarding one’s thought life. The proposition that all moral laws are civil laws is an absurd one indeed!

The question proposed is this: Should homosexuality be illegal? If so, in what way? If not, should Christians be “doing something about it”?

Let me try to give context to the first verse I want to reference. The book of Leviticus is generally thought to be divided into a few sections, the first part being ceremonial laws concerning the sacrifices and purification rites. This section goes on until chapter 18, in which the laws concerning sacrifices end, and the general civil law begins. This next section of Leviticus deals with things requiring civil punishment, and speaks on issues ranging from general theft requiring restitution, through to where we are stopping. Here, couched between a list of other sexual sins including bestiality and incest, is the law concerning homosexuality:

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)

In my previous post concerning whether homosexuality was a sin, I said that this verse should, at the least, remind us that homosexuality was not considered something small. Now, even further than a personal moral law, it seems clear that this law is clear when it states that homosexuality is a civil offense requiring the death penalty.

The objection made by Christians at this point is generally the argument that the law is no longer valid, that when Christ came we entered a new era, an era of “love”. However, if we are to take the Bible systematically, we cannot simply wish for some difficult part to be dissolved.

Unless you can show somewhere in the Bible where it says that the Old Testament law has completely passed away, that view (of a “new era”) is simply not Biblical. This would be much like a child arguing that, since father had not told him he could not play in the street today, means that yesterday’s command to not play in the street is nullified.

Now certainly, the death penalty for homosexuals seems a rather strict one, especially in an age where the sexually deviant are not only accepted but encouraged, but if we are to be honest Christians we must see what we can make out of this seemingly uncomfortable law.

First, how is such a law implemented? What restrictions are put on such a law? It would be a terrifying world, indeed, if one could get put to death by a person wildly accusing you of homosexuality! Can a person practicing homosexuality in the privacy of their home be convicted?

Thankfully, the book of Deuteronomy (the other book of law) does not leave us too much “in the lurch”, but goes on to put a major restriction on the death penalty:

“On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witness must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.” Deuteronomy 17:6-7 (NIV) See also Deuteronomy 19:15

Here we find our first major restriction on any death penalty: There must be multiple witnesses. This point seems an obvious one in a country where a trial by jury and a slew of witnesses are generally required, however, this right has not always been recognized, and ancient Israel was quite the opposite of the surrounding countries which could kill you without reason or witnesses.

If this is not enough, later in Deuteronomy it speaks of the problem of false witnesses, that they are given the punishment which would have been (or already was) given to the person standing trial. Enacting this law alone would reduce lawsuits greatly, and would not allow “evidence” such as DNA and fingerprints to stand as a witness at a trial.

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother.” Deuteronomy 19:16-19 (NIV)

The next point brought up, generally by the secular person although at times by the Christian, is that we will have people snooping around, spying in the windows. The claim comes down to an argument that “what stays in the private of home should be of no concern”, at least as far as the law goes. As a blanket statement concerning all events, this argument is false: If a murder occurs in someone’s home, it is certainly of concern!

It seems that this principle could be drawn out a bit more: Considering that the Bible requires the death penalty for homosexuality, it seems that it is something which, even if done in the privacy of one’s home, is something at least “of concern”. However, even though we are concerned with murder occurring in the privacy of a home, we don’t set up security cameras or go peering in the windows of our neighbor’s home at night. It seems that the same practice of respecting privacy should be applied in this area as well.

While this idea of respecting privacy is all fine, this section of Deuteronomy indicates that, even if an act is done in private, once it is found out it must be investigated:

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take that man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.” Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 (NIV)

While this command refers especially to worshiping other gods, it’s first phrase “doing evil in the eyes of the Lord” seems to refer to any evil act deserving the death penalty. However, recall the first two rules required and apply them here: If you were bringing false witness, you would get the death penalty, and you would also need at least another witness.

In the dozen or more people who responded to the survey I sent out, the main part of which were conservative Christians, the major thought of the comments was that homosexuality should be illegal, at least in some general sense. I did not ask specifically whether homosexuality should be punishable by death, so we can let the comments speak on that.

Finally, even though many conservatives and many Christians feel that homosexuality should be made illegal, the question still must always come down to: On what basis do you argue this?

If the Bible is not the ultimate foundation for our law, than the only thing remaining is human thought. That human thought is the same which created legal systems which sent numberless Jews to concentration camps, which sent innocent Christians to be torn apart by lions for entertainment, and the same law which chops off the hands of thieves and only punishes the woman–refusing to punish the man–for cases of adultery.

Sola Scriptura