American politics aside, this "creed" includes biblical proofs (a little odd coming from so many supporters who affirm that the Bible is not the actual Word of God), so it ought to be addressed. Here's what they say. Here's what I see.
As one of God's children, I believe that protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith.This opening phrase has no biblical references. It's hard to find the Scripture that says or hints that "protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith". But, fine, it's claimed as a belief, so let's move on.
I believe God created each person in the divine image to be spiritually and physically healthy. I feel the pain of sickness and disease in our broken world (Genesis 1:27, Romans 8:22).Gen 1:27 affirms that we are made in God's image. Rom 8:22 says that "the whole creation groans and suffers" because of "its slavery to corruption" (Rom 8:21). Yes, indeed, humans were made in God's image -- perfect -- and the lack of perfection we see today is because of sin. But is it really God's will that everyone be spiritually and physically healthy? I have to ask since the Bible has more than one account of God sending illness on people. Seems odd to me.
I believe life and healing are core tenets of the Christian life. Christ's ministry included physical healing, and we are called to participate in God's new creation as instruments of healing and redemption (Matthew 4:23, Luke 9:1-6; Mark 7:32-35, Acts 10:38). Our nation should strive to ensure all people have access to life-giving treatments and care.Life and healing are "core tenets" of the Christian life? The passages quoted here reference Jesus's healing of many people. Yes, indeed, Jesus healed. Several references tell us why: these were intended as "signs", proof that He had come from God. (John's gospel, for instance, never uses the word "miracle", but instead calls them "signs" over and over.) And, in fact, one reference is to the disciples healing as well. What's interesting is the claim that it's now up to us, our science, and our government. I understand that Jesus healed as a sign of being a genuine messenger of God, but how does that translate into either us as participants "as instruments of healing" or any such command to our government?
I believe, as taught by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus, that the measure of a society is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable. The current discussion about health-care reform is important for the United States to move toward a more just system of providing care to all people (Isaiah 1:16-17, Jeremiah 7:5-7, Matthew 25:31-45).Jesus referenced little children, to be sure. And society should take care of its most vulnerable. (It seems somewhat hypocritical to argue for protection of the most vulnerable while supporting a woman's right to kill the most vulnerable people on the planet. Where is that in this creed?) But is "society" equivalent to "government"? In earlier times in our country, the Church was the caretaker of the needy. It has slipped from that role, thanks in part to failure of the Church and in another part because the government having assumed the task. But the problem is this: The commands of Scripture (like the ones referenced in these verses) are to individuals, not to the U.S. government. And wouldn't this be a repeat of the problem? We are commanded to do it ... so let's hand it over to the government. Bottom line, one of the "core tenets" of Christianity is individual responsibility. So ... when did it become the government's job?
I believe that all people have a moral obligation to tell the truth. To serve the common good of our entire nation, all parties debating reform should tell the truth and refrain from distorting facts or using fear-based messaging (Leviticus 19:11; Ephesians 4:14-15, 25; Proverbs 6:16-19).Do we need biblical references to tell us to tell the truth? No, of course not. Is it only those who question the current health-care reform plans that distort facts or use fear-based messaging? No, of course not. So ...?
I believe that Christians should seek to bring health and well-being (shalom) to the society into which God has placed us, for a healthy society benefits all members (Jeremiah 29:7).That reference from Jeremiah is interesting. God commands His people "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you." Such good advice. So the Christian approach would be to tell the government "... so ... you do it!" No, the command is to God's people.
I believe in a time when all will live long and healthy lives, from infancy to old age (Isaiah 65:20), and "mourning and crying and pain will be no more" (Revelation 21:4). My heart breaks for my brothers and sisters who watch their loved ones suffer, or who suffer themselves, because they cannot afford a trip to the doctor. I stand with them in their suffering.There will indeed (for Christians) be a time when there is no more death and no more sorrow ... but that's not in our lifetime. No amount of government intervention is going to bring that about. If the claim is that this is a "Christian creed" that such a thing will occur as a result of a proper government health care plan, there could be nothing further from the truth.
I believe health-care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life as a sacred gift from the Creator (Genesis 2:7).Gen 2:7 tells us that life is a gift from God. True. The conclusion, then, is that it is a God-given entitlement for all humans to have proper health care ... right? Odd thing, that. No one has ever at any time in all of history come to such a conclusion. When did this suddenly become a God-given right?
Look, there is some truth to what this "creed" (seriously, it's not anything that resembles a "creed") says. We ought to care. We ought to be doing something. We ought to be taking care of people. We ought to be giving to needs. Don't hear me say something different than that. What I don't see is anything in my Bible that suggests that it's the job of the government to do these things. These are all commands to people, not States. So ... in what sense is it "Christian" to petition the government to do what Christians are commanded as individuals and as a group to do?
28 comments:
Well said, Stan. It is sad how these people make up their own version of what God said -- or what their made-up god said -- and how inconsistent they are.
Even though they misinterpret the passages they reference, did you notice how incredibly confident they were that God really said those things? Yet they turn all skeptical when they don't agree with a passage. Hmmmmmm.
a little odd coming from folks who affirm that the Bible is not the actual Word of God
On what do you base this? The Good Christians at Sojourners are HUGE believers in the Bible and following God's Word. Perhaps you are mistaken?
Dan,
Sojourners is, according to their own website, "a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture." Since I've already commented on the contradiction of "progressive" and "Christian", I thought it was self-evident. Having reviewed their site, however, it appears that the accusation does not belong in their laps. However, the most ardent supporters are exactly all those "Christian" groups that quickly dismiss the Bible as the Word of God either in actual claim or in practice, so there is still the same problem. We have "Christian" organizations throwing the Bible at the problem ... when it suits them.
Because government is us, "we the people"…
Cannot see how any Christian can be against health care reform…
Applying 19th century thinking to a 21st century problem…
Naum: "Because government is us, 'we the people'"
That would be true if we don't take the Bible at face value. The grand "American Experiment" premised itself on "we the people", the idea that government is derived from the people. The Bible, on the other hand, disagrees.
Naum: "Cannot see how any Christian can be against health care reform"
How about if a Christian believed that the "reform" that is being offered would make matters worse than they are?
By the way, I am still not arguing for or against "health care reform". This post is an argument against the argument that it is a biblical position to take. You see, if it is the biblical position that President Obama's health care reform plan is the right plan, then we Christians need to shut up and side with the President. Are you willing to make that claim? Or is it possible that genuine Christians might have genuine disagreement with this particular plan based on something other than crude self-interest (a question I've asked and you've never answered)?
Stan: That would be true if we don't take the Bible at face value. The grand "American Experiment" premised itself on "we the people", the idea that government is derived from the people. The Bible, on the other hand, disagrees.
We live in a world together where we're all interconnected and interdependent. I know I keep repeating this here, but without the "government", you'd be bereft of 98% of what your life in 2009 is dependent upon. Furthermore, how can we believers, who should be set apart by the love we should be known for (as was true with the earliest Christians), accept the deprivation of life because someone is uninsured or cast out because of a preexisting condition or terminated because of a corporate insurance company algorithm?
Stan: How about if a Christian believed that the "reform" that is being offered would make matters worse than they are?
Yes. Regarding this specific reform, it certainly can be argued that is the case (and from both left and right, extreme right that thinks any such legislation is unconstitutional (though this argument was already settled 75+ years ago) and left that thinks it's just corporate welfare, ala Romney Care on a national level)
Naum: "without the 'government', you'd be bereft of 98% of what your life in 2009 is dependent upon."
I'm confused again. Did I make an argument that the government is "bad" or "shouldn't exist" or some such? The Bible commands of Christians, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom 13:1). That contradicts the concept of government "of the people".
And, again, I have yet to make a single argument against health care reform. I have argued against the argument that it is a Christian mandate.
Tell ya what ... how about if I put out my version of Health Care Reform? Will that help clear this up? Because you seem to keep responding to things I did not say.
We have "Christian" organizations throwing the Bible at the problem ... when it suits them.
Wouldn't you think that it would be more appropriate to say that we have Christians who reference the Bible when they call upon other Christians to behave in a Godly, just, Christian manner? And wouldn't that be a correct thing to do?
I'm with you (I think) in that I have not decided whether or not the gov't solutions they're speaking of would be an improvement or detriment to our collective health care. I'm wary of gov't solutions, especially when they send great deals of money to corporations. But seeking answers for health care problems is something we can agree falls within Christianity's purview, yes? Whether those are so-called progressive or so-called conservative Christians.
And we should probably be able to do so without scare quotes suggesting that those who disagree with us are not Christians is probably not the most helpful way to discuss the matter.
You are correct that any on the so-called Left would be wrong to suggest, "Obama's current proposed solution is the ONLY Christian solution," do so in error. It is wrong for anyone (I don't know of anyone who is actually doing it, but if they were) to say, "If you disagree with me on this point, your position is not Christian..." And that is true whether or not the person falls in the more Leftish or Rightish side of things.
"Scare quotes". I like that. Of course, it is totally inappropriate in this case. Those quotes around "Christian" are my way of being generous. I am referencing all who call themselves "Christian" regardless of whether or not they are.
The problem here is the same one as before that so upset you. I already explained to my readers why I consider an inerrant Bible an essential to Christianity. Some of these organizations will throw the Bible at people when it suits them but set it aside when it doesn't. That's not the same as calling on Christians to behave in a godly, just, Christian manner. The Bible, for this approach, is a source document only when it supports their view. When someone brings up biblical references against something they favor, it's wrong. Nor am I suggesting that they aren't Christian for their perspective on health care reform. I have already called into question the Christianity of those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture.
Perhaps no one is saying, "If you're not in favor of the President's health care reform, you're not a Christian." They are certainly suggesting it. If it is a "Christian Creed" to support his health care reform and someone disagrees, what logical conclusion do I reach? If I say "The doctrine of inerrant Scripture is essential for Christianity" and you disagree with me, what conclusion do you reach? Similar.
The creed does not endorse Obama's agenda, nor any specific agenda of the Dems or Republicans. Rather, it says that it is our moral duty to seek just health care solutions.
I believe health-care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life as a sacred gift from the Creator
Reading through that Creed, I don't see how any Christian could disagree with it. Or any person, really.
It says, in brief, As one of God's children, I believe...
1. Protecting the health of each human being is important personally and communally.
2. Life and healing are core tenets of Christian faith. Our nation should strive to ensure all people have access to health care.
3. The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable.
4. We have an obligation to tell the truth, not smear/twist the positions of others.
5. We should seek to bring health and well being to the society.
6. I stand with the poor, ill and suffering.
7. I believe health-care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life.
What is there to disagree with in that creed? I would think that at a minimum, each and every Christian could agree with all of it, yes?
From that Creed, we can discuss and disagree about how best to work to live it out, but it's merely stating that we begin with these values.
Do you actually disagree with any of the values, or are you just suspicious that they are endorsing a plan with which you're not sure you agree?
As they say, we ought to tell the truth, not twist the words of others. I see nothing in these words themselves that is offensive, unless they are twisted, do you?
No, the Bible does not say gov't is obliged to do any of this. But neither does the Bible say that a people can't agree to work to resolve these sorts of issues as a society, even using gov't. I would suspect we agree, yes?
Dan Trabue: "I don't see how any Christian could disagree with it."
Then you didn't read my post.
Someplace along the line -- and very recently -- we decided to add a new entitlement to humanity. We didn't have it before. It never has been before. But now it is a "given" that all humans have a right to health care. So now, as a matter of Christian values, we need the government to supply it.
My post has addressed (again) whether or not this is a matter of Christian values. It primarily addresses the attempt at a biblical "proof". I tried to show that it isn't valid reasoning from Scripture. I further question the apparent assumption that it is our job to make the government give us health care. And I wonder why it is that this is something about which a "Christian Creed" should be written while so many other pressing issues aren't even allowed to be discussed from a Christian perspective.
It doesn't specifically endorse the President's plan. Okay. Is there another one out there that it supports instead? Are we to conclude nothing from its release at this point in time (while Congress is debating the issue) or the fact that we are called on to sign it and send it to Congress? ("Dear Congressional Representative, please pass a plan ... any plan ... we don't care which. It's just the Christian thing to do.")
I'm still hanging, then, on the two points -- "It's Christian to require health care reform from the government" and "We are perfectly justified in invoking God in this argument even though we aren't allowed to do so in others."
Because to be against health care reform is in essence, to hate the poor and want them to die.
Merciless behavior not becoming of a Christian.
Stan said...
I'm still hanging, then, on the two points -- "It's Christian to require health care reform from the government" and "We are perfectly justified in invoking God in this argument even though we aren't allowed to do so in others."
1. We are agreed, then, that it is wrong for anyone to misconstrue your position and for you to misconstrue others' positions, yes?
2. That is to say, no one ought to say that "Since Stan does not support the president's healthcare solution, he is not a good Christian," right?
3. Similarly, no one ought to claim that this creed says something it does not say, right?
4. I don't see anywhere in the creed where it says "It's Christian to require health care reform from the government" - we are agreed, aren't we, that this line simply is not there, right? Nor is there a line that insinuates that specifically, right?
5. Rather, this creed says it is Christians' responsibility to be concerned about health care, especially for the least of these, and a good society ought to work for responsible solutions for health care. Do we agree that this is what it says and NOT that it specifically demands that it's Christian to "require" health care reform from the gov't?
6. Now, certainly, the intent of this creed is to suggest there is nothing WRONG with using gov't as part of the solution, along with private solutions, and indeed, it is Christian to work on solutions of some sort. But it does not specifically call for gov't solutions. Is that not the case?
7. SO, given that it's not specifically demanding that gov't fund health care solutions, do we agree that these are reasonable Christian expectations, with just what it says, not what we might think they MEAN by what they say? After all, it is wrong for others to misrepresent your position and for others to misrepresent Sojourners position, yes?
Once again, this seems all entirely difficult to disagree with.
Stan said...
I'm still hanging, then, on the two points -- "It's Christian to require health care reform from the government" and "We are perfectly justified in invoking God in this argument even though we aren't allowed to do so in others."
On your second hanging point, who has said that you can't make the case to other Christians about specific gov't policies? I don't know of anyone saying you can't do so.
This Creed of Sojourners is specifically addressed to Christians. If you wish to address Christians about gay marriage and advocate what you consider biblical or faith-based reasons for opposing it, no one is trying to stop you.
On the other hand, if Sojourners were approaching Congress and saying, "The Bible says Health Care is good, therefore you ought to pass this law..." they would probably be mostly ignored by Congress. They'd have the right to make the case, but in a secular society, we ought not base laws based on one group's notion of what the Bible says. That's true whether it's Sojourners making a case or Jerry Falwell or Stan.
Societally speaking, we want to know what civic reasons you have for supporting or opposing a policy. Societally speaking, we don't really care if you think the Bible says gay marriage is bad or that Sojourners thinks the Bible says health care is good.
No one is stopping Sojourners or you from making your biblical case to Congress or America at large, but societally, one group's notion of a biblical case may not hold sway and you're best served by offering up some civic-based/logic-based reasons for your positions, IF you want to make your case.
So, no hanging point that I see there.
Naum: "to be against health care reform is in essence, to hate the poor and want them to die."
Last time and then I give up. Please point out ANYTHING in anything I've written in this piece (or the prior ones) that suggest that I am against health care reform. Anywhere?
Dan,
It appears (and it strikes me that it has always appeared) that your primary method of making your point is to overwhelm your readers with much words. Don't be surprised, then, when you don't get all your questions/points answered.
Dan Traube: "'It's Christian to require health care reform from the government' - we are agreed, aren't we, that this line simply is not there, right?"
No, we are not agreed. If you reference the web page that I reference in the post, it starts with "In the face of negative ads, partisan rhetoric, and a news cycle filled with fear and half-truths about health-care reform, Christians must affirm that we believe in: quality, affordable access to life-giving services for all people." In other words, the point is exactly the current debate over the Obama health care reform plan. Second, the page instructs the reader "Sign 'A Christian Creed on Health-Care Reform' and a copy of it will be sent to your members of Congress." The topic, the context, the goal is all to get Christians to call on our government to bring about health care reform because it is the duty of Christians to do so.
Dan Traube: "Once again, this seems all entirely difficult to disagree with."
That's because of a narrow view that says, "The creed doesn't specifically say 'Obama's health care reform' anywhere, so it's not what it's talking about." Given the context from their web page, it certainly is.
Dan Traube: "On your second hanging point, who has said that you can't make the case to other Christians about specific gov't policies?"
This is built, apparently, on your erroneous notion that they are not encouraging the President's plan. They are asking people to sign the form and send it to the Senate and to Congress. This is not "making a case to other Christians", but making a case to the government.
And, look, this entire double standard of "woman's choice" versus "the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable" is just too offensive to even address. Even Sojourners (who takes a harder line on some things than I expected) is only willing to take a position to "dramatically reduce abortion." The goal, then, is to cut down on the number of murders of the most vulnerable of society, not make it illegal to kill them.
I'm glad you have no problems with it. You won't mind if I do, right? We're in agreement there, right?
Stan,
I'm sorry I haven't jumped in sooner. I've been trackin' with you the whole time. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how much more plainly you could make a case...
Thanks, Ryan. I didn't think I was being vague. Tomorrow I will post my idea of a Health Care Reform from a Christian perspective. I'm sure that will clear everything up. (Yeah, right ... clear as mud.)
Stan: And, look, this entire double standard of "woman's choice" versus "the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable" is just too offensive to even address. Even Sojourners (who takes a harder line on some things than I expected) is only willing to take a position to "dramatically reduce abortion." The goal, then, is to cut down on the number of murders of the most vulnerable of society, not make it illegal to kill them.
"Murders"?
A fundamentalist absolutist position — does that mean woman + doctor should be sent to jail for murder for committing abortion? Does life begin at conception? That certainly means birth control should be outlawed and fertility clinics shut down…
While I agree with your pro-life stance (and unlike most conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical Christians, apply it more consistently in being anti-death penalty/anti-war/anti-torture, pro children, etc.…), it's not spelled out anywhere in the Bible (Exodus 21 only place w/bible scholar interpretation contrary to what commonly proclaimed) except as a general inference (just like Sojourners creed for health care reform).
Naum: ""Murders"? A fundamentalist absolutist position ..."
Quick with the labels, aren't you?
If you define murder as "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse", then abortion is not murder ... because it is the lawful killing of another human being. Since this is the current definition of murder in our country, doctors and the mothers who participate cannot be prosecuted. Abortion, then, is the legal killing of a human being. If you define murder as "homicide with malice" (as opposed to "manslaughter" -- homicide without malice), then it is murder.
Fascinating that you, who heartily deny that the Bible is "Scripture" in any sort of "inerrant" or even "God's Word" sense, try to deny this position from "it's not spelled out anywhere in the Bible". On the other hand, I think it's quite clear that a child in the womb is a child, not a tissue blob. When the unborn Christ visited the unborn John the Baptist, John leapt in the womb. The suggestion from the "woman's choice" side would be that a conglomeration of human tissue not yet actually human responded to another conglomeration of human tissue not yet actually human. Yeah ... I got it. God is a bit ... odd Himself. He called more than one prophet from the womb. Calling tissue blobs to be prophets is just ... bizarre. No, I think the Bible is quite clear that an unborn child is a child. (And I didn't reference Exo 21.)
I think we are equally clear on this concept as humans. We refer to the pregnant woman as the "mother" before she has ever had the child. No one questions what I'm talking about when I say "unborn child" because that's what it is. We know this. Logic dictates it. Look, thinking backward, if a "senior citizen" is person, is a "middle aged" human a person? Yes, of course. The difference? It's an earlier stage of the senior citizen. And the "young adult"? Yes, a person ... an earlier stage. And the adolescent? Well, we may debate it, but, yes, that's a person. The child, the toddler, the infant, these are all earlier stages of standard human life. Somehow, however, you would like us to think that before this human life emerges from the womb it is not human life. So what is the earliest stage of human life in your view? To me it is abundantly clear from logic and science that the earliest stage of human life is the embryonic stage. Anything beyond that is still human life. Anything prior to that is not human life. Prior to that (ovum and sperm), it is not a stage of human life (because alone those cells cannot produce a human being).
So ... what artificial line would you like to draw? And on what biblical or moral basis? Birth? Something prior to birth? Why not after birth? On what basis? I base my view on the Bible, logic, and science. Yours?
(And, Naum, just for educational purposes, phrases like "a fundamentalist absolutist position" are typically intended in a pejorative sense. That type of phrase is usually intended as an insult intended to disparage the one you are referencing. In normal conversation, then, it becomes very difficult to discuss the ideas and issues at hand because the listener often feels forced to defend himself or herself. If you use that type of phrase to end a conversation, you'll likely find it very effective. On this blog, where I intend to keep the conversation friendly, these types of derogatory comments are not viewed as "friendly".)
While I may question the notion of "inerrancy" (as does a honest reading of the Bible itself does), unfair to characterize my take as not "God's Word" — I do accept Scripture as "God Breathed"…
You make an interpretation, and if you really believed that it was "murder", how can you not argue for judicial punishment for parties involved. Or for the existence of birth control — science shows that "abortion" is indeed the result in some instances, or fertility clinics…
You don't argue those things because it's not politically expedient — or it could be that cognitive dissonance has gripped your thinking.
The term "fundamentalist" seems apropos — in 1895, at a conference of conservative Christians at Niagara issued the following statement defending fundamental points of Christian belief, later to be published as a series of pamphlets titled The Fundamentals. Five points were:
1. verbal inerrancy of scripture
2. divinity of Jesus
3. virgin birth
4. substitutionary theory of atonement
5. physical, bodily return of Jesus
Naum: "if you really believed that it was "murder", how can you not argue for judicial punishment for parties involved."
Asked and answered. The law defines murder as illegal homicide and defines killing the child in the womb as legal homicide. I would favor changing the law. I don't have the option of forcing the government to bend to my beliefs.
Naum: "Or for the existence of birth control ... You don't argue those things because it's not politically expedient"
An assumption that is not wise. I do make the argument on contraception. On the other hand, it would appear that, in order to be consistent, a person would need to argue about every single aspect of every single question around every single issue. I haven't addressed fertility clinics ... therefore I'm inconsistent. Odd approach.
I am a fundamentalist in the sense of "A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles". No one uses it that way anymore. It almost always refers to "right wing wackos who have a narrow, absolutist perspective that should be ignored ... and potentially terminated." You don't know that?
Stan noted...
No one uses it that way anymore. It almost always refers to "right wing wackos who have a narrow, absolutist perspective that should be ignored..."
Well, if the shoe fits... (And I'm sure you won't see any humor in my note, but that's the way it's intended, nonetheless). Many fundamentalists HAVE moved away from Naum's definition to more of your definition. Or perhaps because of their claim to hold to Naum's definition, they have become this caricature and thus marginalized themselves.
For my part, I gladly claim the term fundamentalist, as in "the anabaptists are reformationists who have advocated a return to the fundamentals as taught by Jesus and lived out by the early church." I DON'T claim the definition of "fundamentalists," as set up in the 1895 meeting Naum referenced.
I assumed humor from the start.
More on the use of the term. From encyclopedia.com, "If anything is certain about the word 'fundamentalist,' it is that, with the possible exception of 'fascist,' no epithet is more commonly invoked today, more pejorative, or more misunderstood.
Anyone who seems too bull-headed to concede what 'everyone else' considers the obvious fault in their position will reflexively be dismissed as a fundamentalist -- an obtuse obscurantist who refuses to yield in the face of overwhelming reason."
"What I don't see is anything in my Bible that suggests that it's the job of the government to do these things".
You're very right there. But apart from that, on TOP of your duties as a Christian, wouldn't you rather the government help than not help?
Steve, that's a separate question. Lots of people are wondering exactly how much "help" it will be, but that, indeed, is a separate question.
In a choice between a free market system and a government option, which do you lean towards? It's a hard question...
But you said you might do a blog about it in the future, so I'll just check back!
I gave my opinion here. The problem isn't the system (free market or government), but the people involved.
Post a Comment