Our culture’s current brand of political strife is nothing compared to the division and hostility that prevailed in the first century. Yet, despite opposition, the Great Physician boldly demonstrated what it means to welcome and care for “the least of these.”
Last month the United State House of Representatives voted to pass health-care reform, thus affording millions of medically uninsured Americans the opportunity to secure basic health-care as a civil right. This historic legislative act is an attempt for America to become a more civil society (with regard to “the sick and poor among us”) — similar to most other first world (and some third world nations) like Canada and parts of Western Europe. During my four-year stint in England to work on my doctorate at the University of Manchester, my family and I were under the National Health Care system (NHS) whereby every citizen and resident was assigned a general practitioner in the area. Quite a paradigm shift from what we’d known in the United States.
Despite the significance of such a major legislative passage in our nation, a partisan dispute continues. The reform measures were largely supported by Democrats, the uninsured, and sympathetic others. But Republicans and some among the privileged class argue that the legislation will bankrupt America in various ways. They also resent the fact that their tax dollars will be used to help pay for the coverage of less-privileged individuals in our society.
Contention over this legislative act has sparked volatile tension and a curious rash of narcissism: seemingly ordinary citizens (protesters) have reacted with a sense of barbarism, hurling racial slurs and other derogatory epithets at members of Congress. Reports of Congressman Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri being spat upon by angry protesters are now well known. Likewise, Congressmen John Lewis of Georgia and James Clyburn of South Carolina were heckled and called “nigger” as they passed protesters outside the House chambers.
It’s enough to make one recall the violent emotion and political chaos that set the scene for Jesus’ arrest and subsequent trial before Pilate:
Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” Pilate said to them, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” All of them said, “Let him be crucified!” Then he asked, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified!” So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters, and they gathered the whole cohort around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” They spat on him, and took the reed and struck him on the head. (Matthew 27:20-30, NRSV)
Similar to modern America, the late Second Temple Judaic period (the period in which Jesus lived and ministered) was as diverse, volatile, and politically charged as our world today. Under Roman rule, heterogeneity with regard to philosophical thought and religious sentiments set the backdrop of first century Palestine. In Palestine, the Israelites maintained a sense of religious Judaic tradition. As an imperial province, new ideas were viewed with suspicion, especially if they challenged traditional thought and the status quo.
Although Judaism by no means was a unified monolith, certain fundamentals were foundational (the function of the Temple, observance of the Mosaic Law or Torah, embracing monotheism, and the expectation of a prophesied Messiah). As a result of tradition and the law, many in the society, especially the sick, were prohibited full inclusion in social-civil-religious life; this led to legal disenfranchisement and marginalization.
As recorded in the New Testament Gospels, Jesus both lived and functioned in this type society. Throughout the Gospels, he went about engaging and healing many who were sick. Jewish purification laws first outlined in the Pentateuch set social-civil-religious policy against persons considered impure: the leper, those with bodily discharge, the lame, and even the Gentiles. The acts of Jesus were contrary to the current policy. In Mark 5, Jesus interacted with a demon possessed man (who dwelled among corpses), was touched by a woman considered impure with bodily discharge, and touched the corpse of a young boy. In all three cases, Jesus enacted legislative health care (healing that went contrary to current policy), thus restoring these individuals back to full participation in the society.
As a result of his universal health-care plan, as well as his controversial declaration that he was the incarnate Son of God, Jesus was persecuted, spat upon, and mocked. James 5:14-16 sums up the kind of health-care plan that Jesus enacted:
Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective (NRSV).
Our newly passed health-care legislation is a good start and will likely help many who are in need. Nevertheless, it’s still an imperfect plan, the patchwork result of much political squabbling and strife. But the health-care plan of Jesus is something altogether different. It is comprehensive, unfailing, and truly universal.
Sir, with all due respect, I couldn’t disagree more with what this article portrays. To start, the battle over health care was not a “class” battle. To use terms such as “the privileged class” versus “the less-privileged” class is to characterize this battle wrongly. People of all classes opposed the President’s stance on healthcare reform. Secondly, how this legislation is going to be paid for in light of our present economic crisis is a very legitimate concern no matter what “class” you belong to. We may be saddling our grandchildren with a debt they’ll never be able to pay. Thirdly, the supposed reports of spitting and shouting the “n” word have not been proven. In fact, nearly all of the demonstrations have been peaceful and civil. Of course, when many people come together over such a volatile issue, you’re going to have a few crazies I don’t care what side of the fence you’re on. To characterize a whole group of people because of the actions of a few is to do the same thing we accuse white people of doing because of the actions of a few black folks.
Fourthly, are you seriously trying to equate President Obama’s health care legislation with the ministry of our Lord? Seriously?!!! Also, are you equating the folks who oppose health care reform, as proposed by President Obama, with the folks who opposed Jesus during His ministry here on Earth? If you are sir, then you are stretching Scripture in ways it wasn’t meant to be stretched. It is rhetoric like this that escalates the debate if I understand what you’re saying correctly. To compare the tea party folks who oppose health care reform with the folks who screamed “Let Him be crucified!” is way over the top!
Sir, I have no problem with your support of health care reform. I do have a problem with your characterization of the people who oppose it in its current form and especially your misuse of scripture to support your viewpoint.
I agree entirely with what Edward said.
In addition, as a Conservative Christian I found this article to be very offensive. I’m not sure if I’m more offended by your prejudice or misunderstanding of conservative opposition to this legislation or your twisting and misuse of Scripture.
Many people, including myself, who oppose this legislation are brothers and sisters in Christ and do care about the poor and ‘least of these.’This legislation is simply not the way to go, in my opinion.
Mr. Sutton (and others): your comments are both interesting and instructive. To equate that people of different classes opposing the Obama health care policy with the assertion that the health care issue (with particular regard to those that lack opposed to those that have) is not a class issue is to unconsciously and wholly misconstrued this particular piece of legislation – on whichever side of the aisle you are (left and right). A number of domestic policy issues fall along the lines of class: health care, jobs, etc. . . Your unconscious assertion is uncritically grounded in a misunderstanding of the body of politics related to social policy and its guiding philosophical undercurrent. Class is the social cultural lens through which all of look – both Christian and non-Christian. This is why we have a variance of Christian denominations, and the witness (intra-denominationally) that the most segregated hour in America still is Sunday morning. The Tea Party, itself, views the Obama plan as a New England (Harvard) elite class battle and attack against the middle and lower middle class working folk of America (a purely pejorative notion that ignores the voiceless underclass – even the President misses the boat when it comes to mentioning the underclass) – this is a class issue! Also, to raise the issue of cost in terms of health care policy funding is, on your part, an admission of a class issue. Be very clear about what class is and what constitutes class issues. Persons who have always known and lived a privilege status largely fail to see the reality of those who predominantly lack – i.e. no health care coverage, no job; this is to suggest what former Texas agricultural commissioner Jim Hightower said of former President Bush’s outlook on his life in relation to others; Hightower intoned “he [Bush] is a man who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.” The sad and ironic thing about this and other policy setting issues is that many of us unwittingly espouse or promote agendas that go against our own interest and needs. We engage in self-flagellation under the mantra of charisma; we join philosophical causes that promote a self-disinterest of societal nepotism and narcissism.
On many levels you have misread my essay, the whole health care debate and the meaning of domestic politics/policy in America. Obama’s health care legislation and Jesus’ policy of healing and health care outlines the parallels – similar focus on the care of the poor and marginalized (re-read the article especially the ending where it is clearly suggested the this is a good start; it fall short of Jesus’ plan which is truly universal – this (the latter) is the plan I promote!). ‘Parallel’ and ‘equate’ is not the same as ‘synonymous with.’ I am simply making a parallel (or if you choose to use the term ‘equate’) of the social policy agenda of Jesus with that of the recently passed health care plan. Both aim(ed) to enact health and healing of all citizens regardless of class, gender and ethnicity. Jesus,’ too, enacted health and healing to all who had need. Is not Jesus our model? Is not this to follow the model of Jesus? You likely are raising more of a semantics issue here. Further, you suggest that I misuse or stretch scripture. This is an interesting notion as well. Biblical writings are complex and multi-layered. I suggest that you must learn to read beneath the surface and without a so-called normative cultural predisposition. I suggest that you learn to read the text in partnership with the Holy Spirit – opened and awaiting for the text to speak for itself. We want to be careful to not keep the text locked in the past, which the historical critical method has the tendency to do only if we are not open to hearing the word, its meaning, speak in and to contemporary contexts.
Post Script: let us be clear that the current health-care reform looks more like a revision of health insurance.
Professor Hopkins
Sir,
I do not doubt that there are many issues in America that revolve around class. My problem is this: Not everything revolves around class as you seem to believe. Also, even when class is involved it doesn’t automatically mean that “the privileged class” is wrong and unsympathetic to the problems of the “less-privileged” class. The very use of the terms pits the privileged against the less-privileged and casts the privileged as the perpetrators and the less-privileged as their victims. In America, politics is played on both sides and each side uses rhetoric to persuade and ultimately win a political battle. When it comes to the issue of universal healthcare I couldn’t care less about that. What is my chief concern is the cost to our generation and especially future generations. We have become a debtor nation and that makes all of us more vulnerable to our enemies. China and Russia hold much of our debt and they are not exactly our allies. These are real concerns and for you to say that “to raise the issue of cost in terms of health care policy funding is, on your part, an admission of a class issue” is incorrect in my opinion.
Also, as a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ, I do not view everyone through the lens of class. I look at folks as human beings who need the love of Christ, rich or poor, black or white. You are correct in your assertion concerning Sunday morning being the most segregated time in America. As believers, that is to our shame!
You are correct when you say that persons at different stations in life tend not to understand others who are as “privileged” as they are. Does that mean it’s government’s job to correct all inequities? I don’t think so. Something that is becoming very prevalent in our society is the use of “enemies” for political gain and advocating for more government intervention and control. This is causing many of us to place more faith in government than in our Lord!
You stated the following: “The sad and ironic thing about this and other policy setting issues is that many of us unwittingly espouse or promote agendas that go against our own interest and needs. We engage in self-flagellation under the mantra of charisma; we join philosophical causes that promote a self-disinterest of societal nepotism and narcissism.” I assume you are referring to folks like myself when you say this. To be honest sir, I am not as concerned about my own interests and needs. I am much more concerned about what’s right and what’s wrong. This seems to be something that is lacking in our politics. People on all sides of an issue are more concerned about their own gains and not enough about what is right in God’s eyes.
Lastly sir, with all due respect, I do know how to study scripture as well as interpret scripture. I am a teacher of the word of God as well as a pastor. I believe the real problem lies in “rightly dividing the word of Truth!” There is a difference between letting the scripture speak (or as I like to put it, “letting the scripture say what it says!”) and bringing your own lens or point of view and imposing it upon scripture. I think too many of us are guilty of the latter. Christ’s end-goal was not to set up a universal health-care plan. He went about healing and delivering to point to the truth that He is the Son of God; the Messiah prophesied about in the Old Testament scriptures. He came to deal with sin and its effects, mainly separation from God and death which is the result of this separation. This is the good news of the Gospel, that man has been reconciled back to God through His life, death, and resurrection.
Your points are noted. I agree with much of what you said. With regard to reading scripture, one thing that I teach my students here at the seminary and at my church, is to be careful not to proof read/impose meaning upon the text – which is what Readers Response Criticism/Readers Centered Perspective as well as Ideological Criticism and Postcolonial Hermeneutics do and emphasize. I like what you say “letting the scripture say what it says.” I agree and many of the biblical methodological tools (employed by the Holy Spirit) allow us to engage the text in this way. I do think it is important for us to be selfless and embrace what Galatians 6:2 states, “Bear one another’s burdens and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” We are our sister’s and brother’s keeper. We should do what we can to help out or support those wanting to help those that aren’t able to help themselves. We trust God and listen for God’s voice. I think as a country we will be fine – we have a governmental/state run public library system, public school system (albeit with many complex problems), public protection services (fire and police), and public media services (television and radio, the former having become more privatized); Having lived in England and spending some time on the continent of Europe – mainly France and Italy, the national sponsored and funded health care system has not bankrupted these more older societies – they do have a different attitude, and way of thinking, toward the economy and civil society. Even if there were a universal health care system in place (which we are far from), the system/program of God is far more superior and perfect in Christ.
Professor J.D.Hopkins
Dear sir,
The problem I see with your exegesis is that you view the recipients of Jesus’ teachings or the ones who will carry out the kingdom program to be the government and not the Church. Jesus speaks to what the Church should be doing. When I say the Church I mean both the corporate body of Christ and individuals.
Jesus never preaches to government entities. He does not challenge Roman or any other governmental agency to carry out His will. Unfortunately, many like yourself see the government as the agent for change when that could never be. It is the Church’s job to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit people in jail. You have confused the role of government with the role of the Church.
Now I expect this kind of thing from non-believers because they don’t know God. But it bewilders me when Christians twist the scriptures and speak as though the government is somehow the agent for God on this earth. Read Matthew 24 and 25 they speak about individual responsibility, what God expects from us as individuals. Who will be faithful until Christ returns? The judgment of the nations is not the judgment of governments, but people from every nation (ethnos). So taking care of the “least of these” is not a governmental mandate but a church mandate.
It is both interesting and curious the way you have interpreted and assessed my essay particularly regarding the role of government and healthcare/social-civil policy. Your comments are instructive. First, I think you may have missed the overall gist of the essay; the social-religious policy of Jesus was met with fierce oppositional resistance by the religious establishment who also happened to serve as the governmental/civil officials. If you recall it was a century prior to this (circa 150 B.C.E. to 63 B.C.E.) where these same religious officials (Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees) reigned as the governmental authorities unaffiliated with Rome. Here the book of Maccabees informs. I think it might be in order to suggest that read the New Testament (gospels in particular) and re-read my article (perhaps several times) in order to gain a full understanding of what is being said. Jesus did preach against the governmental authorities of Israel regarding social, civil, class and religious policy. Please read your New Testament! Your interpretative misunderstanding fails to construe the comparative analogies. Granted, and I do understand, that you, like everyone, is philosophically grounded in a particular social location and read and understand from a particular worldview and lens; perhaps you have projected and imposed this understanding and have taken grandiose assumptions; again, in this you have failed to grasp the prose. Try to re-read receptively and without an assuming short-sighted agenda.
Second, it is interesting that many (including you) allude to the notion of misusing or twisting scripture and at the same time offered no conceptual alternative or theoretical framework which to read. Where is the value in this? Do you understand the meaning and import of exegesis? What is your definition/understanding of how scripture is to be interpreted, used and/or understood – recentionally, redactionally or in light of its historical transmission? Do you clam that your understanding is normative – if so, normative for who and informed by who? – Certainly not God! Scripture is multi-layered and multi-valiant. A basic course in scriptural exegesis/hermeneutics would teach you this. Meaning given or brought to the text today oft times is bereft of its historical context, thus lacking conclusive accuracy. Moreover, and at the same time, the heterogeneous nature surrounding and undergirding the text offers currency that is both variant and markedly different from its authorial and receptor’s use, intent and late Second Temple cultural intent.
Thirdly, you wrongly assert the erroneous belief that Jesus never preached to or against governments. Rome was not the only government in the late Second Temple period. During this time the Jewish community explicitly understood its priestly establishment as governmental-oriented. The very notion of Messiah (its meaning) carried political/governmental allusions and overtones (read the New Testament gospels phonomologically and not through your modern American Christian lens). King David, Israel’s beloved King, was a type of Messiah(= kingly ruler). He ruled over, not the church as you likely assert, but the government! You need to study the function and role of late Second Temple Palestine up through Jesus’ day; although Palestine was under Roman provincial rule (as an imperial province), they yet remained a nation within a nation with its social-civil structure in place – the priesthood were the leading social and religious establishment. They influenced and to an extent determined and upheld policy for its people; a basic Introduction to New Testament studies course (which I encourage you to take) will cover these details. With this said, Jesus denounces government when he speaks against the current established leadership (in the gospels Jesus denounces the Pharisees, scribes and Sadducees – Palestine’s governmental officials who set and upheld social policy. Jesus even upset the policy of buying and selling in the temple – hardly a religious act. God’s prophet spoke aganist government in Daniel and Ezekiel (i.e. against the nations of Tyre and Sidon)
The biblical witness provides both diachronic and synchronic accounts that the government did act on behalf of God. What is going on both throughout the New and Old Testaments accounts? God set up his government (as 1 Peter 2:9 intones) whereby the ecclesia (the called out) were to be governmental ambassadors for Christ. An ambassador represents not self or individual as you would suppose, but the Government of God (see Isaiah 9 – the purpose, function and archetypal example and influence of Jesus). The nation of Israel was God’s government. This same system and government functioned to a degree even when Israel was in captivity (Babylon) and under Roman Rule. Why do you think Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple around 70 C.E.? This was political. God used government. He used his government (filled with folks receptive to him) to act as a change agent. I suppose if you were a government official you would suddenly stop caring for the marginalized and disenfranchised – absurd! Or are you the only one who decides who and what institutions function as God’s change agents?
As an imperial province, Jerusalem was a most contentious place politically. It was unlike a senatorial province which was calmer and wholly run by Rome. Individualism is a fairly modern social-philosophical concept and ideology which began in Europe and largely flourished in American colonialism. Due to Christian (protestant and others) contention among these groups (Congregationalist, puritans, Catholics and others) rugged individualism thrived and became the dominant ideology in America. While individuals have do have a responsibilities,
Sociologically, the church reflects a meadiational (anchor) institution that neither created the vast problematic social ills and anxieties within society nor has the adequate resources to fully alleviate these difficulties. It is unfair to place such a large burden upon such an institution (sociologically). While the church does maintain an effective spiritual (prayerful) presence and thrust for the individual and wider community, the vastly complex social problems that exist yet lye beyond the prowess of churches as social institutions (here Robert Franklin’s, The Crisis in the Village: Restoring Hope in African American Community, may prove helpful). I do say, as I stated in the article (which you consciously failed to read or understand) that unlike our current health care (insurance) reform, the policy of Jesus is truly universal.
Professor J D Hopkins