Jesus and Health Care
29 comments | Permalink
J. P. Moreland argues that Jesus "would never have supported universal healthcare."
posted by JT at Sunday, August 12, 2007
Between Two Worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture
Sponsors
Search
Gospel
- Stand: A Call for the Endurance of the Saints
- Communion with the Triune God (by John Owen)
- The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World
- Overcoming Sin and Temptation (by John Owen)
- Suffering and the Sovereignty of God
- Sex and the Supremacy of Christ
- Reclaiming the Center
- A God-Entranced Vision of All Things
- Beyond the Bounds
- Tim Challies
- Desiring God Blog
- In Light of the Gospel
- What's Best Next?
- Tullian Tchividjian
- The Sola Panel
- Upper Register
- Church Matters
- Kingdom People
- Pure Church
- Together for the Gospel
- Albert Mohler
- Cranach Blog
- Team Pyro
- Reformissionary
- Kevin Cawley
- Joe Thorn
- The A-Team
- ESV Blog
- Stand to Reason
- WorldMag
- Evangelical Outpost
- Resurgence
- Biblical Foundations
- Adrian Warnock
- Mark D. Roberts
- Jim Hamilton
- Denny Burk
- Russell Moore
- Ray Van Neste
- Founders Blog
- Historia Ecclesiastica
- Worship Matters
- Vitamin Z
- Frame-Poythress
- Josh Harris
- Girl Talk
- Radical Womanhood
- The Rebelution
- The Gospel Coalition
- Desiring God
- Sovereign Grace Ministries
- 9 Marks
- Matthias Media
- Stand to Reason
- CBMW
- Biblical Spirituality
- Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
- Ligonier
- Truth for Life
- Grace to You
- Monergism
- Biblical Foundations
- Founders Ministries
- Reformation 21
- Modern Reformation
- World Magazine
- Christianity Today
- Themelios
- Reformed Perspectives
- The Briefing
Co-Edited Books
Other Websites
Other Blogs
Blogs
Ministries
Evangelical Mags, Journals, and E-Zines
29 Comments:
Would Jesus have supported universal education?
oh sheesh. I can't believe Moreland.
He agreed with the statement: "Jesus never intended such action [care for others] to be forced on people by the state."
Since when is universal health care a thing you force on people that you care for? The US stinks for not providing care for the poor.
Thanks, I was just asking myself that question today, "What kind of health care would Jesus support?"
Now I have the answer.
Blessings,
Bryan L
Wow, that's a tough one. While moderately conservative there is part of me that agrees with Moreland's sentiment- the part about church and state being seperate. Yet at the same time I cannot imagine the Lord being unhappy that the people of the United States or any other country are providing universal health care (UHC). I would think that the Old Testament by application would make clear that we need to be concerned for the poorest of our brothers and sisters.
Let's face facts - God is not a capitalist, and He really is not a selfish libertarian (OK, so I listen to and have been influenced by Derek Webb, I'll admit it!) It does not wash with me that God would side with selfishness over sacrifice. IMHO, Sen. Kennedy for all of his warts, weaknesses et.al is closer to the heart of God on this issue than those who argue so vehemently against UHC.
While trying to avoid the sarcasm of Bryan I would echo his sentiments. Pretty bold statement for someone to claim that Jesus would not support universal health care. Especially since Jesus made the statement that he was a doctor to the sick, and did not seem to charge for his services.
I am not arguing for free health care, but why not universal health care? Last time I checked we have universal education, policing, and fire dept. Oh and those things we call utilities that are vital for all people's well being such as water, power, gas, are all regulated so that all can have their services. How is health care any different? It is a necessity. It is not like a pint of ice cream people. Just like power, and water we all need it and have a right to it. I wrote a review of Sicko detailing why Christians and Jesus should and would care about this issue.
http://mattandryan.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/sicko/
Moreland is not talking about health care being forced on anyone by the government. He is talking about the government forcing the bill for your health care onto your neighbor.
How is Senator Kennedy "closer to the heart of God" when he gives from the pockets of others? "Closer to the heart of God" is giving from your own pocket.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul has never been Biblical, but it's a great way to buy Paul's vote.
Moreland's article is both exegetically vacuous and theologically inconceivable. "A careful study of Jesus and New Testament teaching proves beyond reasonable doubt that he took the state to be the guardian of negative rights, not the provider of positive ones." Huh? Well, consider this a reasonable doubt. To conclude that Jesus and the teaching of the New Testament witness to any kind of political philosophy is to misunderstand and misapply the message of the original authors. I believe that the government's role is to primarily promote and protect the betterment of the commonweal (which results in my firm belief in universal health care.) My political beliefs do not come from the Bible. They are certainly informed by Scripture and accountable before God (like every other belief) but when election time comes around I confess that Jesus is not my favorite political philosopher. I would strong suggest Darryl Hart's most recent work: A Secular Faith
How is Senator Kennedy "closer to the heart of God" when he gives from the pockets of others? "Closer to the heart of God" is giving from your own pocket.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul has never been Biblical, but it's a great way to buy Paul's vote.
The good senator, for all of his faults, recognizes that the country as a whole would do well to provide health care for even the least capable of us. The whole concept of everyone providing for the needs of others is a very Christian concept. This from my perspective is what Kennedy is speaking of when he refers to Universal Health Care.
I think Moreland is stretching it a bit to take such a firm stand. I think his position is a non-sequitur.
Jesus may not have said anything that would show he would have been in favour of universal health care, but I don't think we can say without a doubt that he would have been against it.
All in all, a rather silly argument.
"Would Jesus have supported universal education?" Though I hate when questions are framed this way (WWJD), I would say no he would not have supported universal education. Universal education violates the separation of religion and state because all education is religious in its worldview. The public education in America is thoroughly Humanistic, despite its claim to neutrality. The sad fact is this, I am am forced by the government to pay taxes to support the provision of this education which I am against and will never use for my children.
With that said, I most certainly agree with Moreland and am surprised that people here aren't seeing the distinction being made. It isn't about whether Jesus is for taking care of people's health needs, I think it is clear that he is certainly for that. The issue is whether actions toward that should be the role of the government or not. I would say no because the (American) government isn't this entity with it's own wealth to just distribute out of their giving heart, they get their money from you and me by taxing us. This forces everybody to pay for something regardless of whether they use/want it or not or whether they support it or not. It is not the role of the government to take care of the sick and needy and the widows, that is the role of the Church. I could say more but I gotta go, but since we are on this topic, presidential candidate Ron Paul would agree with Jesus and vote no to universal health care, so vote for him. :)
I agree with Moreland. For those who pick on him for the topic, remember: he didn't pick it; he took his cues from Michael Moore.
BTW, I am 'anonymous.' Oops.
Jesus didn't just support, he provided universal healthcare. He healed all who came to him, and there is no mention of him sending out bills or refusing to pray for the poor.
It's interesting that no one has even bothered to make the point that UHC is a terrible way to meet the health-care needs of the poor.
I oppose UHC, not because it forces everyone to pay, but because it makes the poor become poorer and doesn't provide a good means of caring for them.
Peter Kirk said,
"Jesus didn't just support, he provided universal healthcare. He healed all who came to him, and there is no mention of him sending out bills or refusing to pray for the poor."
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting nurses should work for free, or just doctors. Or perhaps the pharmaceutical companies should supply their services free of charge.
Or perhaps you were thinking more along the lines that our Charismatic friends with the gift of healing should go into hospitals and provide their services for free. That would be closer to what Jesus did.
What exactly does Jesus healing for free have to do with the 21st century American health-care system?
hmmm, well i come from a family of doctors and maybe one side of this that isn't considered as much is the issue of salary being decreased dramatically for doctors. my grandfather is an orthopedic (bone) surgeon and because of government regulations he makes less on a hip replacement and knee surgery now than he did 15 years ago, and that's without taking inflation into consideration.
now i know doctors make alot, but they also put about 12 years of hell into it before the turn around in money. so, i do think this must be taken into consideration. in a perfect world people become doctors because its a service to mankind, but lets face it, if a person has to be trained intenselfy for about a decade to make a small salary, they're going to be less willing to do it.
i don't know what they answer is, but this is a very potential problem.
-Chris
Why stop at healthcare? If the goal is to be compassionate through giving away free services regardless of the consequences, then why should we only raise the taxes of those who are not poor so only they, the poor get healthcare?
Perhaps it would also be compassionate to nullify the poor's carbon footprint by giving away carbon credits.
Doctors wages should be driven by supply and demand, just like any other occupation (other than union jobs, whose wages are driven by price-fixing collusion among employees that is illegal when employers do it). When the government takes over, they'll have to regulate the wages of doctors, just like if we were in a socialist state. But don't worry, the government will do a really, really good job managing health care, just like bridge-building, hurricane relief, and bringing democracy to the Middle-East.
When it comes to politics, Dr Moreland would do well not to quit his day job. I agree that universal, state-funded health care would not have been our Lord's first choice - perhaps the church taking care of the poor and needy would have been - but He certainly would have understood the need for such. In understanding the need, He likely would have allowed it.
To argue from the lesser to the greater, if God allows divorce (a clear perversion of His design) because of hardness of heart surely He would allow health care (an obvious good) for the poor and the needy even if it came through the government.
Too, I think Moreland created categories to support his argument, i.e., negative and positive functions of government. Better, I believe, are the categories of eternal and temporal (with neither excluding the other). Jesus' government is eternal, albeit breaking through at times in our world; those governments established by the Father during the time from Gen 3 to Rev 20 are temporal and destined to cease. Health care is a temporal need - just like taxes, which He paid - and thus a legitimate area of temporal, national, governmental concern.
Appealing to Jesus, whether by Moore or Moreland, to support temporal health care misses the point. God has already provided us with the institutions necessary to meet the needs of the poor and needy. As Christians we need to be advocates for and servants to the poor and thus manifest Christ's kingdom here on earth.
I confess that this is one aspect of conservative American politics that I simply cannot understand. Every other western democracy from Norway to New Zealand has universal health care and why the richest nation of earth doesn't have it continues to baffle me.
A few years ago Chuck Colson wrote an essay entitled "Who Speaks for God?" In it he argued that those who claim AIDS is God's judgment upon homosexuals and those who insist it is not are both extremely arrogant, since God has not spoken on the topic. I would suggest the same is true when it comes to "universal healthcare." It is fine to speculate, but foolish to insist Jesus would take a particular position on this issue.
Mike said, "why the richest nation of earth doesn't have it continues to baffle me."
That's probably the reason: because it is the richest nation of earth. There's big money in healthcare.
Blessings,
Bryan L
As an American who has lived in Europe for the last 4 years, I must say that it's hard to imagine anyone arguing against universal health care after seeing it in action. Here in Belgium, no one loses all their money because of their own hospital bills or those of their family members. Everyone gets excellent care. My wife just had a caesarean and had 7 days of top-notch care in the hospital. I can't imagine Jesus criticizing this system: tax dollars going to medicine more than to weapons (quite the reverse in the US). Moreland's argument seems rather naive and narrow to me.
I think that we can all agree that Jesus wants the poor to be cared for.
Two questions, though, remain:
1) Should unwilling people be forced to care for the poor?
2) What is the best way to care for the poor?
I think, in terms of the government, the answer to (1) is "Maybe", and the answer to (2) is "Reduce the welfare state, allow more economic freedom, create more economic opportunityand avoid Universal Health Care by any means necessary."
Fixing Health Care will require empowering and motivating consumers to make better health care decisions, which requires financial costs and benefits to impact the consumer.
Government consolidation and redistribution of wealth is one of the worst things that can happen to the poor.
"Artificially lower prices, created by government order rather than by supply and demand, encourage more use of goods and services, while discouraging the production of those same goods and services. Increased consumption and reduced production mean a shortage." - Thomas Sowell, from Apllied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, page. 70.
Honestly, I couldn't even bring myself to click on the Moreland link. Just came straight here to the comments to say that.
I am encouraged, at least, to see this many evangelicals disagreeing with the GOP party-line on Health Care. It seems that we all agree on the desired ends (adequate health care for everyone), but disagree on the appropriate means.
It's a good thing when Christians can't be politically owned by one political party on every issue - it gives us a stronger voice on the issues where we have more consensus (such as pro-life issues).
Mike,
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I'm amazingly irritated that Moreland, a well respected apologist and philosopher, would make such amazingly BAD arguments. His first argument is especially bad, having been shown to be so by numerous rights theorists and philosophers. I'm disappointed. For my rebuttal, see here (http://dinnertabledonts.blogspot.com/2007/08/jp-moreland-on-universal-health-care.html)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home