A Few Responses to the Comments
I really like what Dan says about the debates on health care being “dominated by affluent white people whose position in life means they have no idea about what life, sickness and death looks like up close in their cities.” Bill Moyers interview with Wendell Potter touches on this: www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html
I attended church in the poorest neighborhood in the city of Muskegon, MI, and served as a deacon in that church for a number of years. Most of our deaconate work involved neighborhood people who came to us in desperation because they had no money for food for their family—often because their welfare check was delayed for some reason. For several years I worked with a family—grandmother, four kids, amputee grandfather—who depended entirely on the social services system, but because the system let them down from time to time, we would have to buy them food or go to the DSS and advocate for them.
I suppose those eighteen years at Bethany CRC, Muskegon had a great deal to do with my position on the need for government programs for the poor. As a church we were able to help the poor in emergencies, but are contribution was a drop in the bucket. And Bethany was far more committed than most churches to helping the poor. I was back there last summer and learned that since the economic collapse of 2008, Bethany has two “deacons” who spend two days a week listening to requests for help from community people and deciding who they can help and with how much money. They are busy all day.
*****
Anonymous 1 asks what the responsibility of the individual is. Obviously, it is to do as much as she can to take care of herself and her family. But as I said, if she is unemployed or earning a base salary that precludes paying health insurance premiums, then others must help her out. “The “let’em die” option that some Tea-partiers expressed at one of the debates is not acceptable to a Christian.
Does God mandate us to participate in a government that runs social programs? You are assuming, I suppose, that those programs are unbiblical—something I’ve seen no Biblical evidence for. I’ve never been quite sure how far we can take Christ’s “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Perhaps it applies to this question. I would say that if a government asks you to do something that is clearly incompatible with fundamental Biblical beliefs, you should refuse. Some Christians, for example, are pacifists for Biblical reasons, and refuse to go to war. Good. But I suppose if one is going to claim to be a pacifist, he should be ready to bear the consequences.
Does God need our money? Of course not. He is almighty. Can loaves be broken to feed thousands? We know that God has done that. I am a gardener, and every time I plant a bean seed I expect God to multiply that bean seed into thirty or forty beans. But I believe God expects me to plant and water and weed that bean seed. That’s the system he has set up. When he wants his word spread around the world, he says “Go ye” to his people and uses what Paul calls “the foolishness of preaching.” Does he need people to help him? Of course not. But when he want the earth cared for, he makes humans his stewards. When he wants justice done, he says to humans, “do justice, love kindness, walk humbly.” I don’t mean to preach, but lately I have heard this argument so often and it goes contrary to a basic Biblical principle: God uses his people to do much of his work. And if they do not feed the hungry, care for the sick, visit the prisoner, the consequences are pretty dire.
Finally, Anonymous 1 wants me to identify myself. I am a reluctant Democrat who does not know what this ‘sub-culture of academics’ is. She/He make academic sound like a dirty word. I would be pleased to be called an academic, though I'm not sure I am one.
******
Ross: Thanks for the kind words. You say the debate is not about whether we care for our fellow humans through government, but the way the question was both framed and answered at the Santorum speech, it WAS about that. And as I listen to the TV debates, Perry, Paul, Bachman and Santorum, outspoken Christians all, seem to espouse a belief that government has no business getting involved in health care or other aid to the poor. I heard this idea from quite a few Dordt students also, and I hear it from old guys like me who love their medicare.
I agree with you, of course, that there is massive waste in government’s management of some entitlements and we have to begin to cut back. On the other hand, according to Wendell Potter of Cygna (a major medical insurer), Medicare spends something like 3% of its revenue on administrative costs while private insurance companies spend about 20%--the difference being that the insurance companies have to include their profits in their costs.
I attended church in the poorest neighborhood in the city of Muskegon, MI, and served as a deacon in that church for a number of years. Most of our deaconate work involved neighborhood people who came to us in desperation because they had no money for food for their family—often because their welfare check was delayed for some reason. For several years I worked with a family—grandmother, four kids, amputee grandfather—who depended entirely on the social services system, but because the system let them down from time to time, we would have to buy them food or go to the DSS and advocate for them.
I suppose those eighteen years at Bethany CRC, Muskegon had a great deal to do with my position on the need for government programs for the poor. As a church we were able to help the poor in emergencies, but are contribution was a drop in the bucket. And Bethany was far more committed than most churches to helping the poor. I was back there last summer and learned that since the economic collapse of 2008, Bethany has two “deacons” who spend two days a week listening to requests for help from community people and deciding who they can help and with how much money. They are busy all day.
*****
Anonymous 1 asks what the responsibility of the individual is. Obviously, it is to do as much as she can to take care of herself and her family. But as I said, if she is unemployed or earning a base salary that precludes paying health insurance premiums, then others must help her out. “The “let’em die” option that some Tea-partiers expressed at one of the debates is not acceptable to a Christian.
Does God mandate us to participate in a government that runs social programs? You are assuming, I suppose, that those programs are unbiblical—something I’ve seen no Biblical evidence for. I’ve never been quite sure how far we can take Christ’s “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Perhaps it applies to this question. I would say that if a government asks you to do something that is clearly incompatible with fundamental Biblical beliefs, you should refuse. Some Christians, for example, are pacifists for Biblical reasons, and refuse to go to war. Good. But I suppose if one is going to claim to be a pacifist, he should be ready to bear the consequences.
Does God need our money? Of course not. He is almighty. Can loaves be broken to feed thousands? We know that God has done that. I am a gardener, and every time I plant a bean seed I expect God to multiply that bean seed into thirty or forty beans. But I believe God expects me to plant and water and weed that bean seed. That’s the system he has set up. When he wants his word spread around the world, he says “Go ye” to his people and uses what Paul calls “the foolishness of preaching.” Does he need people to help him? Of course not. But when he want the earth cared for, he makes humans his stewards. When he wants justice done, he says to humans, “do justice, love kindness, walk humbly.” I don’t mean to preach, but lately I have heard this argument so often and it goes contrary to a basic Biblical principle: God uses his people to do much of his work. And if they do not feed the hungry, care for the sick, visit the prisoner, the consequences are pretty dire.
Finally, Anonymous 1 wants me to identify myself. I am a reluctant Democrat who does not know what this ‘sub-culture of academics’ is. She/He make academic sound like a dirty word. I would be pleased to be called an academic, though I'm not sure I am one.
******
Ross: Thanks for the kind words. You say the debate is not about whether we care for our fellow humans through government, but the way the question was both framed and answered at the Santorum speech, it WAS about that. And as I listen to the TV debates, Perry, Paul, Bachman and Santorum, outspoken Christians all, seem to espouse a belief that government has no business getting involved in health care or other aid to the poor. I heard this idea from quite a few Dordt students also, and I hear it from old guys like me who love their medicare.
I agree with you, of course, that there is massive waste in government’s management of some entitlements and we have to begin to cut back. On the other hand, according to Wendell Potter of Cygna (a major medical insurer), Medicare spends something like 3% of its revenue on administrative costs while private insurance companies spend about 20%--the difference being that the insurance companies have to include their profits in their costs.
Comments
Post a Comment