Discussion:
The health care debate and the future of theology
(too old to reply)
Steve Hayes
2009-09-04 01:22:06 UTC
Permalink
A couple of weeks ago I called for a synchroblog on Christian approaches
to health care, and the synchroblog took place a couple of days ago - you
can find the links to it here:

http://su.pr/5Ashiq

I must say I was rather disappointed in the result.

Most of the posts dealt with political and economic approaches to health
care, and Christian approaches were mentioned just in passing, if at all.

One blogger I know mentioned attending a conference on "The future of
theology" (he didn't contribute to the synchroblog) and that is perhaps
symptomatic of the problem. Theology has become too introspective, talking
about itself and its future.

I invited some Anglican blogging friends to join in, but none of them
seemed to do so. The Anglicans seem to have pushed introspection to the
limit, with few exceptions blogging almost exclusively about their own
internal squabbles.

Why am I writing this?

Perhaps I'm one of the children in the market place, saying "We have piped
for you and you have not danced."

But I see it as a symptom, and perhaps a pointer to the future of
theology. When a group of Christians write about Christian approaches to
health care, theology has nothing to say to them. The voices of politics
and economics speak louder. Theology has nothing to say to the world, or
even to the church, it speaks only to and for itself.

Several years ago John Davies, who was then the Anglican chaplain at the
University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, visited the UK, and met
people from the Anglican Stendents Federation in Britain, which he
described as "introspective, theoretical and irrelevant". He said there
was an opposite danger, of being "woolly and humanist".

And perhaps that is the state of much theology at present.

Some bloggers took the line that health care is a right.

When one talks about rights, some people remind us that we should not talk
only about rights, but also about duties.

And in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which I take as a paradigm
case of Christian approaches to health care, nothing at all is said about
rights to health care. The message is primarily about duty. It is not that
Lazarus has a "right" to health care, but the the rich man had a duty to
provide it.

What sparked of my interest in the topic, and my original post on it,
which was my contribution to the synchroblog, was a statemnt I read on
another blog, that said quite baldly, "universal health care is theft."

The statement seemed such a complete antithesis to a Christian approach to
health care that I thought it was important to try to think about such
things from a Christian point of view, as opposed to political or economic
points of view.

The statement "universal healthcare is theft" puts me in mind of another
parable of Jesus. It is the story of the man who went from Jerusalem to
Jericho and got mugged. A priest and a Levite passed, but offered him no
health care. That fell to a Samaritan, who cared for him.

The point of the story, however, was to answer the question of a lawyer:
"Who is my neighbour?"

At the end of the story Jesus says to the lawyer, "Who then was neighbour
to him who fell among thieves?" and the lawyer answered "He who had mercy
on him". Jesus never answered his question, all he said was "Go thou and
do likewise".

Jesus turns the lawyer's question around, because it is the wrong
question: the right question is not "Who is my neighbour?" but "Who can I
be a neighbour to?"

The question "Who is my neighbour?" comes from a mean, stingy, niggardly
and ungenerous spirit. It is trying to establish the bare minimum that I
can get away with.

And the statement that "universal health care is theft" springs from the
same mean, stingy and ungenerous spirit. It seeks to justify stinginess,
and even exalt it as a virtue. Jesus sdaid, "Freely have ye receive,
freely give". But the spirit of meanness and stinginess turns it around
"Freely ye have received, so make sure that you can grab as much as you
can and make sure no one else gets any".

That is why the statement that "universal healthcare is theft" is the
antithesis of Christianity.

But if we put that aside, and agree that universal health care is a
desirable goal and not an immoral one, the question of how it should be
achived obviously involves politics and economics. So obviously politics
and economics come into it, but for Christians those should be secondary
to theology.

Health care is a hot topic in the USA at the moment, and in other places
too. There are many different viewpoints, and there are many vested
interests, and many different proposals. But before jumping into the fray
and taking sides, as Christians we need to ask how we should _approach_
the debate.

Rather than jumping in running before our feet hit the ground, we should
be asking how we can approach it with the mind of Christ. Rather than
saying that this option is good and that is bad, we should consider what
criteria we are using for deciding which is good and which is bad. And
theology ought to help us decide on those criteria, rather than getting
lost in the contemplation of its own future.

from blog post here: http://su.pr/2hGiUj
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
darylgene2003
2009-09-08 02:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
A couple of weeks ago I called for a synchroblog on Christian approaches
to health care, and the synchroblog took place a couple of days ago - you
http://su.pr/5Ashiq
I must say I was rather disappointed in the result.
Most of the posts dealt with political and economic approaches to health
care, and Christian approaches were mentioned just in passing, if at all.
I think the writer should consider all the charitably supported
hospitals, many of them Christian, and the fruits of their labor that
a multitude of Christians give to various medical charities, as well
as their donations of time and skills. I do not see how it is either
generous nor Christian to pay for health care with someone else's
money.
Post by Steve Hayes
And in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which I take as a paradig=
m
Post by Steve Hayes
case of Christian approaches to health care, nothing at all is said about
rights to health care. The message is primarily about duty. It is not tha=
t
Post by Steve Hayes
Lazarus has a "right" to health care, but the the rich man had a duty to
provide it.
What sparked of my interest in the topic, and my original post on it,
which was my contribution to the synchroblog, was a statemnt I read on
another blog, that said quite baldly, "universal health care is theft."
Is it not, as proposed, legal theft? Taking money from people to do
what YOU consider to be their duty? I do not see anyone preventing
anyone else from contributing to anyone else's health care. Christ
certainly never proposed that you could fulfill your duty to others by
forcing someone else to help them. So what is the consequence of that?
There is far less individual charity in nations where the populace
lives in the paternal care of the state.
Post by Steve Hayes
The statement seemed such a complete antithesis to a Christian approach t=
o
Post by Steve Hayes
health care that I thought it was important to try to think about such
things from a Christian point of view, as opposed to political or economi=
c
Post by Steve Hayes
points of view.
The statement "universal healthcare is theft" puts me in mind of another
parable of Jesus. It is the story of the man who went from Jerusalem to
Jericho and got mugged. A priest and a Levite passed, but offered him no
health care. That fell to a Samaritan, who cared for him.
"Who is my neighbor?"
At the end of the story Jesus says to the lawyer, "Who then was neighbor
to him who fell among thieves?" and the lawyer answered "He who had mercy
on him". Jesus never answered his question, all he said was "Go thou and
do likewise".
Jesus turns the lawyer's question around, because it is the wrong
question: the right question is not "Who is my neighbor?" but "Who can I
be a neighbor to?"
As was the parable of the Good Samaritan, but all of them are pointing
to individual, not collective, responsibility. There is an old saw,
"the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." When you consider
the consequences of the current proposals, and their cost, and the
consequences of that cost, I would say it very likely applies here.
Trying to twist Christ's words to endorse a very iffy proposal that
could be harmful to a great many people, just to achieve some Utopian
political ideal, I would suggest treads dangerous ground.
Post by Steve Hayes
The question "Who is my neighbor?" comes from a mean, stingy, niggardly
and ungenerous spirit. It is trying to establish the bare minimum that I
can get away with.
And the statement that "universal health care is theft" springs from the
same mean, stingy and ungenerous spirit. It seeks to justify stinginess,
and even exalt it as a virtue.
Jesus said, "Freely have ye receive,
Post by Steve Hayes
freely give". But the spirit of meanness and stinginess turns it around
"Freely ye have received, so make sure that you can grab as much as you
can and make sure no one else gets any".
So you think you are being generous by taking money you never earned
and giving it to someone you think should have it instead. First, I
would suggest you sell all you have and give the proceeds to the poor,
as Jesus advised the rich man, when you have done that, your holier-
than-thou attitude might be a bit more palatable.
Post by Steve Hayes
That is why the statement that "universal healthcare is theft" is the
antithesis of Christianity.
No, it recognizes that you cannot defer your own responsibility by
taxing someone else.
Post by Steve Hayes
But if we put that aside, and agree that universal health care is a
desirable goal and not an immoral one, the question of how it should be
achieved obviously involves politics and economics. So obviously politics
and economics come into it, but for Christians those should be secondary
to theology.
Health care is a hot topic in the USA at the moment, and in other places
too. There are many different viewpoints, and there are many vested
interests, and many different proposals. But before jumping into the fray
and taking sides, as Christians we need to ask how we should _approach_
the debate.
Rather than jumping in running before our feet hit the ground, we should
be asking how we can approach it with the mind of Christ. Rather than
saying that this option is good and that is bad, we should consider what
criteria we are using for deciding which is good and which is bad. And
theology ought to help us decide on those criteria, rather than getting
lost in the contemplation of its own future.
I would suggest looking at the beam in your own eye before removing
the mote from your neighbor's

Daryl
George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
2009-09-10 00:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by darylgene2003
A couple of weeks ago I called for a synchroblog on Christian approache=
s
Post by darylgene2003
to health care, and the synchroblog took place a couple of days ago - y=
ou
Post by darylgene2003
http://su.pr/5Ashiq
I must say I was rather disappointed in the result.
Most of the posts dealt with political and economic approaches to healt=
h
Post by darylgene2003
care, and Christian approaches were mentioned just in passing, if at al=
l.
Post by darylgene2003
I think the writer should consider all the charitably supported
hospitals, many of them Christian, and the fruits of their labor that
a multitude of Christians give to various medical charities, as well
as their donations of time and skills. I do not see how it is either
generous nor Christian to pay for health care with someone else's
money.
And in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which I take as a parad=
ig=3D
Post by darylgene2003
m
case of Christian approaches to health care, nothing at all is said abo=
ut
Post by darylgene2003
rights to health care. The message is primarily about duty. It is not t=
ha=3D
Post by darylgene2003
t
Lazarus has a "right" to health care, but the the rich man had a duty t=
o
Post by darylgene2003
provide it.
What sparked of my interest in the topic, and my original post on it,
which was my contribution to the synchroblog, was a statemnt I read on
another blog, that said quite baldly, "universal health care is theft."
Is it not, as proposed, legal theft? Taking money from people to do
what YOU consider to be their duty? I do not see anyone preventing
anyone else from contributing to anyone else's health care. Christ
certainly never proposed that you could fulfill your duty to others by
forcing someone else to help them. So what is the consequence of that?
There is far less individual charity in nations where the populace
lives in the paternal care of the state.
The statement seemed such a complete antithesis to a Christian approach=
t=3D
Post by darylgene2003
o
health care that I thought it was important to try to think about such
things from a Christian point of view, as opposed to political or econo=
mi=3D
Post by darylgene2003
c
points of view.
The statement "universal healthcare is theft" puts me in mind of anothe=
r
Post by darylgene2003
parable of Jesus. It is the story of the man who went from Jerusalem to
Jericho and got mugged. A priest and a Levite passed, but offered him n=
o
Post by darylgene2003
health care. That fell to a Samaritan, who cared for him.
The point of the story, however, was to answer the question of a lawyer=
"Who is my neighbor?"
At the end of the story Jesus says to the lawyer, "Who then was neighbo=
r
Post by darylgene2003
to him who fell among thieves?" and the lawyer answered "He who had mer=
cy
Post by darylgene2003
on him". Jesus never answered his question, all he said was "Go thou an=
d
Post by darylgene2003
do likewise".
Jesus turns the lawyer's question around, because it is the wrong
question: the right question is not "Who is my neighbor?" but "Who can =
I
Post by darylgene2003
be a neighbor to?"
As was the parable of the Good Samaritan, but all of them are pointing
to individual, not collective, responsibility. There is an old saw,
"the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." =A0When you consider
the consequences of the current proposals, and their cost, and the
consequences of that cost, I would say it very likely applies here.
Trying to twist Christ's words to endorse a very iffy proposal that
could be harmful to a great many people, just to achieve some Utopian
political ideal, I would suggest treads dangerous ground.
The question "Who is my neighbor?" comes from a mean, stingy, niggardly
and ungenerous spirit. It is trying to establish the bare minimum that =
I
Post by darylgene2003
can get away with.
And the statement that "universal health care is theft" springs from th=
e
Post by darylgene2003
same mean, stingy and ungenerous spirit. It seeks to justify stinginess=
,
Post by darylgene2003
and even exalt it as a virtue.
=A0Jesus said, "Freely have ye receive,
freely give". But the spirit of meanness and stinginess turns it around
"Freely ye have received, so make sure that you can grab as much as you
can and make sure no one else gets any".
So you think you are being generous by taking money you never earned
and giving it to someone you think should have it instead. First, I
would suggest you sell all you have and give the proceeds to the poor,
as Jesus advised the rich man, when you have done that, your holier-
than-thou attitude might be a bit more palatable.
That is why the statement that "universal healthcare is theft" is the
antithesis of Christianity.
No, it recognizes that you cannot defer your own responsibility by
taxing someone else.
But if we put that aside, and agree that universal health care is a
desirable goal and not an immoral one, the question of how it should be
achieved obviously involves politics and economics. So obviously politi=
cs
Post by darylgene2003
and economics come into it, but for Christians those should be secondar=
y
Post by darylgene2003
to theology.
Health care is a hot topic in the USA at the moment, and in other place=
s
Post by darylgene2003
too. There are many different viewpoints, and there are many vested
interests, and many different proposals. But before jumping into the fr=
ay
Post by darylgene2003
and taking sides, as Christians we need to ask how we should _approach_
the debate.
Rather than jumping in running before our feet hit the ground, we shoul=
d
Post by darylgene2003
be asking how we can approach it with the mind of Christ. Rather than
saying that this option is good and that is bad, we should consider wha=
t
Post by darylgene2003
criteria we are using for deciding which is good and which is bad. And
theology ought to help us decide on those criteria, rather than getting
lost in the contemplation of its own future.
I would suggest looking at the beam in your own eye before removing
the mote from your neighbor's
Daryl
Maybe you have heard it said, =93The earth is the Lord=92s and the
fullness thereof.=94 That includes money and other wealth. Should the
Lord move the nation to use its wealth to conquer illness and to delay
death of the poor, then so be it. I know many will be upset if God
should use the money of those who are well off to help those who have
little, maybe some will find comfort in the saying, =93The Lord gives
and the Lord takes away.=94

Sometimes young people are drafted to serve their country and risk
their lives to help others, and I see no reason that money cannot be
drafted to serve the country. Of course the decision will be with God
as I only have one vote in millions.
darylgene2003
2009-09-15 01:39:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 9, 5:22=A0pm, George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina
triungus <***@aol.com> wrote:
...
Maybe you have heard it said, =3D93The earth is the Lord=3D92s and the
fullness thereof.=3D94 =A0That includes money and other wealth. =A0Should=
the
Lord move the nation to use its wealth to conquer illness and to delay
death of the poor, then so be it. I know many will be upset if God
should use the money of those who are well off to help those who have
little, maybe some will find comfort in the saying, =3D93The Lord gives
and the Lord takes away.=3D94
Sometimes young people are drafted to serve their country and risk
their lives to help others, and I see no reason that money cannot be
drafted to serve the country. Of course the decision will be with God
as I only have one vote in millions.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
As a wise man once said direct democracy fails when people see they
can vote themselves money from the treasury. Taking money in huge
quantities from the economy is going to have huge consequences. We
might as well have our own "Five Year Plan" and be done with it, or
just give all our money to the government, surely they can allocate it
better than we can, they do such a great job with the things they
control now. The Lord asks us to freely give, not confiscate what
isn't ours (remember "Thou shall not steal"?). It would be different
if any of the plans proposed would be helpful, but that is far from
certain, what is certain is that they would cost enormous amounts of
money that our economy may not be able to deal with. It would not help
anyone if they had health care but heavy taxation kept them from
acquiring a job to feed themselves. Or I suppose they could work for
the giant bureaucracy that would be created.

Daryl

----

[I'm going to moderate this discussion tightly. This is a
discussion group about Christianity, not politics. I'm very
interested to see if there are specific Christian
perspectives on the debate, but so far I'm not seeing it.
--clh]
Steve Hayes
2009-09-16 02:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by darylgene2003
As a wise man once said direct democracy fails when people see they
can vote themselves money from the treasury. Taking money in huge
quantities from the economy is going to have huge consequences. We
might as well have our own "Five Year Plan" and be done with it, or
just give all our money to the government, surely they can allocate it
better than we can, they do such a great job with the things they
control now. The Lord asks us to freely give, not confiscate what
isn't ours (remember "Thou shall not steal"?). It would be different
if any of the plans proposed would be helpful, but that is far from
certain, what is certain is that they would cost enormous amounts of
money that our economy may not be able to deal with. It would not help
anyone if they had health care but heavy taxation kept them from
acquiring a job to feed themselves. Or I suppose they could work for
the giant bureaucracy that would be created.
And that illustrates precisely the point -- people are so obsessed with
economics and politics: how much it will cost, how will it be organised, that
they can't think theologically about the WHAT.

I started wondering about this when someone wrote that5 "universal health care
is theft", which I thought was not merely unChristian, but thoroughly
anti-Christian.

And not here is someone sayting that "Thou shalt not steal" is the most
applicable verse.

Obviously Mammon takes precedence over Christ every time.

The Lord asks us to "freely give", but he also says "freely ye have received".
St John Chrysostom bluntly says that having more than you need and not sharing
it with the poor is theft.

But obviously Jesus was evil, stealing from the priest and the Levite and the
lawyer. "Go and do thou likewise" he says.

Not, "If you feel like it, think about doing something similar, but only if
you feel completely comfortable with it, of course."
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
a***@joe.net
2009-09-10 00:22:47 UTC
Permalink
I will throw out one point here that is almost always missed by all sides of
this "debate."

Price, availability and quality of any product or service are proportional
to the supply of that service, and inversely proportional to demand.

Demand for medical services is growing because of the increasing age and
increasingly poor health of Western societies, as well as burgeoning growth
in those few societies that are actually growing (mostly Muslim and Catholic
countries).

Supply of medical services however is sharply and deliberately limited by
the medical cartels that operate in most countries (in the U.S., the
American Medical Association). These cartels limit the supply of doctors,
medical equipment, and most other goods and services necessary to the
practice of medicine, for the sole purpose of maximizing the income of their
membership.

Dismantling these cartels, and allowing for as many *qualified* doctors and
other medical professionals to practice medicine as the market will bear,
would drastically improve the medical situation in this and most other
countries.

This is not rocket science; it is basic economics.

But you will not hear this point discussed, by anyone, because most people
simply parrot the "talking points" issued by the government media, which
limits debates to two "sides" that are actually fairly similar in that each
results in greater control over ordinary human beings by either big
governments, or big corporations (which in the end turn out to be the same
thing).

Christians and others of good will should work to understand the injustices
of the current system, and where they come from and why they exist. Once
they do, they will understand that "more of the same" will only exacerbate
the problem, and will lead to more unnecessary suffering and death, while
removing the injustices would remove most of this suffering as well.


Joe
DKleinecke
2009-09-15 01:39:24 UTC
Permalink
I will throw out one point here that is almost always missed by all sides=
of
this "debate."
Price, availability and quality of any product or service are proportiona=
l
to the supply of that service, and inversely proportional to demand.
Demand for medical services is growing because of the increasing age and
increasingly poor health of Western societies, as well as burgeoning grow=
th
in those few societies that are actually growing (mostly Muslim and Catho=
lic
countries).
Supply of medical services however is sharply and deliberately limited by
the medical cartels that operate in most countries (in the U.S., the
American Medical Association). =A0These cartels limit the supply of docto=
rs,
medical equipment, and most other goods and services necessary to the
practice of medicine, for the sole purpose of maximizing the income of th=
eir
membership.
Dismantling these cartels, and allowing for as many *qualified* doctors a=
nd
other medical professionals to practice medicine as the market will bear,
would drastically improve the medical situation in this and most other
countries.
This is not rocket science; it is basic economics.
But you will not hear this point discussed, by anyone, because most peopl=
e
simply parrot the "talking points" issued by the government media, which
limits debates to two "sides" that are actually fairly similar in that ea=
ch
results in greater control over ordinary human beings by either big
governments, or big corporations (which in the end turn out to be the sam=
e
thing).
Christians and others of good will should work to understand the injustic=
es
of the current system, and where they come from and why they exist. =A0On=
ce
they do, they will understand that "more of the same" will only exacerbat=
e
the problem, and will lead to more unnecessary suffering and death, while
removing the injustices would remove most of this suffering as well.
Joe
Joe is correct enough not to need any correction. But he is a little
off the original poster's stated question.
Of course, more economically efficient healthcare is desirable, but
the question here seems to be rather should the government offer
universal healthcare.

If we ask the standard question - what would Jesus do? - we get the
obvious answer - he would do everything in his power to heal the sick.

If we follow the usual principle of Christian ethics - imitate Christ
- we should all be doing everything in our power to heal the sick.

This is just barely a theological issue. Depending on what you mean by
theology. I got my opinion of Jesus' behavior from the gospels and the
moral principle from Paul. If reading the Bible is a theological
action it is theology. Otherwise the whole theological content is
believing what you read in the Bible.

In the earliest days of Christianity the Christian community operated
communally. I don't recall any passage in the Bible that abrogated
that. We can shift ground a little and allow for a modicum of private
property - but mostly our apparent wealth is not our real wealth
(store up riches in heaven) and when it is needed by the community it
should be joyfully given whenever it is asked for.
Loading...