by Christine A. Scheller | Feb 15, 2012 | Family, Feature, Headline News, Self-Empowerment |
Yesterday, UrbanFaith columnist Andrew Wilkes expressed his opinion about President Obama’s decision last week not to require religious employers to pay for contraception as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Today, we add the voices of Christian thinkers Cheryl J. Sanders, Charles C. Camosy, and Lisa Sharon Harper to the discussion.
Sanders: ‘The Public Policy Priority Is Justice’
Dr. Cheryl J. Sanders
“The first rule that had to be retracted and reversed was an unfortunate miscalculation on the president’s part. I give him credit for tweaking the agreement. What I lament is something that I don’t just blame him for, but which occurs from time to time, particularly in the federal government, where there’s a misunderstanding, a misreading, of religion and people’s religious sensibilities. Some things can be legislated, but there are some beliefs and practices that people have that are grounded in faith rather than a particular notion of rights.
My ethical perspective is that the priority in public policy should be given to justice. The purpose of justice is to ensure the well being of people and to impose those restraints and requirements that give people equal access to justice and to fair treatment, because they’re not exactly the same. Sometimes those justice matters are subjective, but the outcome of justice should be the best quality of life that any individual person or group can have.
Some people make very questionable decisions about their sexuality, about child bearing, but they have a right to their own bodies and their own relationships, so it’s good for government to stay out of that. When it comes to federal funding of religious institutions, there are goods and services that go to people consistent with this notion of quality of life that are rightly funded by the government. However, the government has to be respectful of the particular moral teachings of a particular religious community that would not necessarily square with the morality of the general public.
I don’t say that’s an easy calculation to make. The government is much more comfortable funding big corporate entities like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services, even the Salvation Army, because they’re organized in a way that matches with the dominant culture’s way of doing business, whereas with black churches and smaller organizations, it’s always a problem. For African Americans, the role that religion and churches play in the society is construed differently. There’s less of a distinction between faith and public policy. That’s why the civil rights movement and many of the strongest voices advocating for legislation or for particular government initiatives are coming from religious leaders in the African American community. You don’t find that same situation in the dominant culture unless it’s something like this where there’s a rule imposed that contradicts church teaching.”
—Cheryl J. Sanders, Th.D., professor of Christian Ethics, Howard University
Camosy: ‘Perhaps Both Sides Were Disingenuous’
Dr. Charles C. Camosy
“The reason this became a serious public issue from which the administration had to backtrack was because ‘liberal’ Catholics were objecting and they were afraid they might lose significant Catholic support in important swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin. The objection of most ‘liberal’ Catholics was related to religious freedom of institutions. They don’t really see contraception (especially letting women make a decision about how to use contraception–either for health reasons or something else or both) as a morally significant issue.
‘Conservative’ Catholics, however, always objected to the mandate in a broad sense because they see especially abortifacient contraception as a very important moral issue–something which all people, regardless of religion or status as a religious employer, should be able to object to providing on the basis of conscience. Unfortunately for this point of view, in order to get “heard” by the administration and the left-leaning Catholics in the media, the line of argument had to be explicitly about the freedom of religious institutions with respect to the federal government. That makes the objections now being raised by the bishops less persuasive because it looks like the goal posts have shifted.
Something that doesn’t get talked about enough in all this is that Catholic teaching, and the U.S. bishops, consider health care to be a fundamental right. A woman can get the pill if she is taking it for what we would understand health reasons—she has an issue with her cycle, ovarian cysts/cancer, she has a condition which makes pregnancy threaten her life, etc. Why can’t a physician simply code a script for a patient in a way that treats a specific health condition? This is totally allowed under Catholic teaching. Unless, of course, the real issue is not about women’s health, but about having sex without having babies. Perhaps both ‘sides’ were disingenuous in speaking about ‘religious freedom’ and ‘women’s health’ when they actually meant something else.”
—Charles C. Camosy, Ph.D., assistant professor of Christian Ethics, Fordham University
Harper: ‘Commitment to Women Doesn’t Trump Religious Liberty’
Lisa Sharon Harper
“At the core of this issue is a debate between worldviews. These worldviews are held most dearly by the people who have the most interest in them. In one worldview, the debate is about the freedom of conscience for religious organizations, in particular hospitals and universities because other religious bodies were exempt from Obama’s ruling. It’s a legitimate concern. There were legitimate counter arguments on the other side, where you had the worldview of women and also people who are deeply invested in issues of poverty.
What I like about what I’ve seen, not only in Obama, but also in the country, is that around this issue, it’s not been a question of ideology, but a question of practicality. What will work to actually continue to protect the religious liberty of religious institutions and at the same time protect the liberty of individual women in America to access contraception? That is not only a right in America because it has to do with an individual’s body and ability to hold liberty over their own body, but also it has to do with the right to life, because we know that contraception is one of the biggest ways to help lessen the number of abortions in America. Sojourners put out a statement saying we like what we’ve seen and we agree with the overwhelming response of the religious community. Our nation is committed to standing behind the needs of women, in particular poor women. That commitment does not have to trump the American commitment to preserving religious liberty. It’s a brilliant compromise.”
—Lisa Sharon Harper, director of mobilizing, Sojourners
What do you think?
Was this a brilliant compromise, a matter of justice, or a disingenuous debate?
*Please note: Participant comments have been edited for length and clarity.
by Andrew Wilkes | Dec 9, 2011 | Feature, Headline News |
CIVIL DISCOURSE: Lisa Sharon Harper and D.C. Innes provide a model for constructive Christian dialogue across political divides.
Left, Right & Christ is a thoughtful examination of the intersection of evangelical faith and politics by two evangelicals who have spent their careers working amidst the tensions of that sometimes-crazy political space. In the book, coauthors Lisa Sharon Harper, a politically progressive Christian, and D.C. Innes, a politically conservative Christian, engage in a constructive dialogue about the issues that are defining the nature of political discourse in our nation today — healthcare, abortion, immigration, gay marriage, the environment. (Full disclosure: I helped research Lisa Sharon Harper’s portion of the book.) A couple months ago, Innes and Harper held a panel discussion and book signing with Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Innes, an associate professor of politics at King’s College, offered a construal of Christian public engagement from the right; Harper, director of mobilizing at Sojourners, shared one from the left. Needless to say, it was a lively discussion. Having read the book and attended the launch event, two things merit mentioning here here.
The role of technology in disrupting consumption and employment
An audience member noted that technology plays an often-overlooked role in reconfiguring labor markets and purchasing patterns. For instance, the advent of automated teller machines — ATMs — marks an improvement in the access and availability of money for consumers. ATMs, however, reduce the need for the traditional function of tellers in local bank branches. As more banks adopted ATMs, consumer patterns shifted and the demand for a certain type of labor diminished.
Neither Innes nor Harper fully integrates this ongoing development — Austrian economist Joseph Schumpter calls it creative destruction — of technology in particular, and capitalism more generally, into their account of the State, the Market, and the Church. To their credit, though, both authors acknowledged the point once it was made. Technology is an existential issue as much as an instrumental one. Phrased differently, it not only alters what we do, but it also radically re-arranges our way of being in the world. I left the panel thinking about this question: What does it mean to be the Church in a world where technology is such a powerful force? To put it crudely, is a proximate cause in unemployment and underemployment from Wall Street to Main Street and our consumption of everything — from the news we read to the Facebook updates on our profiles — is mediated through technology? I’m still pondering this one and I encourage you to consider it as well.
The use of Scripture in political arguments
While reading the book and listening to their remarks, I noticed an interesting difference between the co-authors. Ms. Harper generally constructs her arguments from passages of the Old Testament. Her treatment of Genesis 1-3 distinctively accents the image of God doctrine and shalom theology. It is rather commonplace to hear Christians from the left invoke the Hebrew prophets or the Imago Dei as a resource for biblical claims about justice and human dignity. Harper’s unique turn within that conversation is to take Genesis — rather than say, Amos or Isaiah — as her starting point and then to deepen the appeal to the image of God doctrine by connecting it to shalom — the sense of wholeness and right relationships between people, between people and creation, and between people and God.
Mr. Innes, conversely, places the weight of his arguments in New Testament passages like Romans 13:1-7 and 2 Peter 2:13-17. His vision: God ordains the government to restrain human sin, punish evil, and praise the good. The last point is particularly important for the professor, who draws a distinction between a government that praises the good (i.e. distributing civic awards like the Presidential Medal of Freedom) and a public sector that attempts to provide goods such as housing, healthcare, and so on. Innes’ arguments — in the book and in person — conclude that a State with large public expenditures and direct service programs overreaches the biblical proscribed role for government.
At the event, Wallis and Innes held a brief but interesting exchange on regulation, Wall Street, and punishing evildoers. Wallis agreed with Innes that punishing evil and restraining sin is a biblical function of government. He then challenged Innes with a question like the following: “Why not apply the insight about punishing evil when it comes to Wall Street?” Innes did not offer a response, although in fairness to him, Wallis did not substantiate his provocative inquiry with a specific example. Nevertheless, given the high-profile conviction of Raj Rajaratnam for insider trading — and his eleven-year sentence, the longest ever issued for this type of offense — Wallis and Innes certainly stumbled upon a discussion worth having.
The panel discussion took place with a refreshing amount of charity amidst contrasting perspectives. Despite harboring significant and perhaps irreconcilable differences of political opinion, neither one made the argumentative move of questioning the other’s faith, audibly doubting the “biblical” nature of the opposing argument, or otherwise resorting to ad hominem attacks. Harper and Innes’ book, and their public dialogue, provides a helpful example for Christians from left to right. In a political environment that incessantly caricatures and stereotypes contrasting points of view, a steadfast refusal to bear false witness — and its corollary commitment, telling the truth as we see it — is a distinctive gift of conversational charity that Christians can bring to democratic discourse.
by Various Contributors | Sep 28, 2009 | Headline News |
A HEALTH-CARE FORUM: 16 Christian leaders talk faith, policy, justice, and reform. Featuring Harry R. Jackson Jr., Jim Wallis, Alveda King, Brian McLaren, Barbara Williams-Skinner, Noel Castellanos, Chandra White-Cummings, Lisa Sharon Harper, and more.
“We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now.“
Martin Luther King Jr. wrote those words in the conclusion to his final book, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? It was 1967, and he was writing in reference to the epic battle for social justice that raged throughout the ’60s. It was a battle between integrationist and separatist, rich and poor, conservative and progressive, Black Power and nonviolent resistance. Most significantly, it was a battle between American and American.
Today in the U.S., we find ourselves at another defining crossroads. The health-care debate is tearing at our nation’s soul, exposing and widening our cultural divisions. Issues — both real and perceived — such as class, race, euthanasia, sanctity of life, immigration law, size of government, and fiscal responsibility have been infused into our conversations and arguments, making a rational and bipartisan resolution seem increasingly unlikely. But whatever the political outcome, a choice remains for us as a nation — and as followers of Jesus. Which will we choose: chaos or community?
In this special forum, UrbanFaith joins forces with Sojourners to present a collection of diverse perspectives on health-care reform. In the days following President Barack Obama’s address before Congress, we asked a cross section of Christian leaders for their opinions about the health-care controversy. Below are their statements of support, opposition, and philosophical reflection. Some are brief, others more expansive. But in each, we hope you’ll find a fresh idea, challenge, or encouragement that helps advance your view of this complex topic.
Reform Is a Moral Issue by Jim Wallis
In his speech before Congress, President Barack Obama made the commitments that a broad coalition in the faith community had asked for — reform as a moral issue, affordable coverage for all, and no federal funding of abortion. Now it is the job of the faith community and every concerned American to make sure the final bill reflects all these moral principles. We will now be calling on our members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, many of them members of our congregations, to support these moral commitments and to make sure, as they “iron out the details,” that each one is firmly upheld.
Rev. Jim Wallis is president and CEO of Sojourners and the author of The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith and Politics in a Post-Religious Right America. For his full statement, click here.
Whose Morality? by Harry R. Jackson Jr.
Church leaders have been asked by the president to call universal health care a “moral imperative.” Projecting universal health care as the “only” moral imperative is as sensible as calling a person born in the U.S. a native Australian because he visited Sydney once. It is certain that every judicious person in the nation wants medical care for the least, the last, and the left out — the goal is admirable, yet sometimes evil is done by those with good motives who lack long-term vision.
The crux of the health-care question is not whether we want to help everyone; the question is how do we deliver the help. Personally, I do not want a socialistic system fraught with inefficiencies. Others are wary of crippling a system that is currently saving millions of lives every day. This argument is not theoretical — delay or denial of essential services will spell death for thousands. Aren’t the lives of every American important? “First do no Harm!” are the familiar words to the Hippocratic Oath.
Where does that leave us? Unfortunately, the plan as it is being fashioned is patently evil. It has several major blemishes. These blemishes are threefold — the moral impact of denied service, funding of abortion, and making employers (including churches) pay for a system that administrates death.
Despite the president’s declarations, his henchmen have refused to add amendments to the bill that would specifically rule out state paid abortion. The Capps amendment, which passed the House Energy and Commerce committee, clearly states that abortion can be “covered” under the public option and must be covered under at least one private plan in each region that is in the Exchange. While it’s a precise point, the other side keeps pointing to the Capps amendment and saying, “Look, it says no ‘funds’ can go for abortions”…. but it violates the Hyde Amendment by providing government subsidies for health plans that “cover abortion” whether the tax dollars actually pay for it or the private premiums pay for the abortion.
Experts tell me that the Capps Amendment has an accounting gimmick that makes it look like only private funds would pay for the abortion, but it clearly says that the government public plan and private plans may, and some must, “cover abortion.”
Most people believe that health-care reform is an important moral issue. However, big government alone cannot reform health care. In fact, it is not the proper mechanism for such a reform.
The community, including the church, has to play a role in health-care reform. Historically, churches and other faith-based charitable organizations have taken an active role in the development of hospitals and organizations that supply care for the sick.
In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina dramatically altered the lives of many people, and blacks in particular, it was the church and other non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross, the Southern Baptist Convention, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, and Catholic Charities, to name a few, who were very instrumental in the efforts to respond to this emergency.
Health-care reform is an emergency, no question; however, government intervention alone cannot adequately address it. The American community — and the faith community, in particular — must play an active role in the reform efforts.
Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is senior pastor of Hope Christian Church and founder of the High Impact Leadership Coalition. He is the coauthor (with Tony Perkins) of Personal Faith, Public Policy.
Reclaiming Civility by Kathy Khang
I’ve grown weary of the health-care debate, because there’s less and less actual debating going on. There’s a lot of noise — loud voices coming from people accusing one another of fear-mongering, politicizing, hypocrisy, racism, and ignorance. I must admit that some of the ranting is actually kind of funny, if I don’t take myself or anyone else too seriously.
But in the past couple weeks I’ve had to stop reading, listening, and watching. The news is too disheartening.
I think we’re losing our way to reforming anything because some of us are too busy drawing lines in the sand. (And not the kind Jesus was drawing.) I know I’m lost.
What difference does it all make if, in the name of reform, neighbors can’t be neighbors?
Well, it matters to me because on most days I want to live out what I say I believe. I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to love my neighbor when I think they are stupid and wrong. Justice and reform will have to start with my heart, before I open my mouth to help shift the noise back to reasonable and civil debate. Anyone want to join me?
Kathy Khang is a mother of three and wife of one who’s trying to love and follow Jesus. She also serves with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship as a multiethnic ministry director. She is a coauthor of More Than Serving Tea: Asian American Women on Expectations, Relationships, Leadership and Faith, and she blogs at MoreThanServingTea.wordpress.com.
Affirming That America Cares by Barbara Williams-Skinner
As chairman of the board of the Christian Community Development Association and a member of the National African American Clergy Network, I wholeheartedly welcome President Barack Obama’s clear and bold pronouncement of the moral foundation for comprehensive and affordable health care for all Americans. His affirmation that America must become a nation that cares about the health and wellbeing of all of her citizens is encouraging.
In his speech to Congress, beyond the issue of universal, affordable coverage and health care as a basic moral issue, was another critical issue. As a pro-life Democrat, I was especially gratified to hear President Obama state unequivocally that abortions would not be included as part of health-care reform legislation.
I pray that congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle would come together behind the President’s vision for comprehensive health-care reform legislation that is worthy of our great nation.
Rev. Dr. Barabara Williams-Skinner is a member of the National African American Clergy Network and president, Skinner Leadership Institute.
Not a Political Contest by Wesley Granberg-Michaelson
Our health-care crisis is, above all, a moral failure. Reform should be neither a partisan cause nor a political contest, but a necessity of service to the common good of our society. I trust that our politicians now can act as the leaders they were elected to be.
Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson is the General Secretary of the Reformed Church in America.
Remember It’s HealthCare by Arnold M. Culbreath
Everyone in the U.S. should have, and deserves to have, health-care coverage. I think we all agree that our current health care needs an overhaul. However, to have a proposed health bill that either directly or indirectly mandates a universal tax funding for all abortions for any reason is not health care — especially when abortion remains the leading cause of death in the Black community, higher than AIDS/HIV, accidents, heart disease, cancer, and violent crimes combined.
Rev. Arnold M. Culbreath is the urban outreach director for the Life Issues Institute, where he leads the Protecting Black Life outreach ministry.
Neighborliness and Generosity by Diana Butler Bass
President Obama has made the moral case for health-care reform by appealing to the best aspects of American character, reminding us of our history, and by making people accountable for their actions. He has called us to neighborliness and generosity. He has drawn a life-affirming picture of a caring community, asking everyone to do his or her part, outlining the responsibilities of deep democracy. And if that’s not progress — and progressive — I don’t know what is.
Diana Butler Bass is a commentator and scholar in American religion and the author of several books, including the bestselling Christianity for the Rest of Us. Read her full statement here.
In Good Faith by Galen Carey
The National Association of Evangelicals welcomes President Obama’s renewed call for bipartisan cooperation on health-care reform. We support the goals of extending coverage, controlling costs, and preventing federal funding of abortion. As the debate moves forward we call on all members of Congress to negotiate in good faith and with the civility, humility, and respect which this important issue demands.
Dr. Galen Carey is director of Government Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals.
Pray and Act Accordingly by Alveda C. King
The church can turn the tide in the current political debates. God is neither Democrat nor Republican; God is sovereign. The first and final acts of people of faith should be to pray and act accordingly. As to the current health-care debate, we must encourage the President and leaders of our nation to remember the dignity of all Americans.
In a recent open letter to President Obama, I joined several African American leaders to declare:
“Mr. President, in the Beloved Community envisioned by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., equal justice means that young people in the womb are not terminated and the elderly in ill health are not denied care because of their age.
We are concerned that your current healthcare plan will not serve the needs of those who are most at risk….
If healthcare reform passes, we have no doubt the number of African American women having abortions will sky rocket. The healthcare bill text needs to clearly exclude abortion from any taxpayer-subsidized or government-mandated benefits. Abortion is not healthcare.
People with disabilities, terminal illnesses, and the elderly, all who need special and expensive care, are also at risk of losing accessibly to doctors and having care denied or delayed…. We are concerned that patient care would be made based primarily on cost and that people with disabilities or special health needs will be put on waiting lists, or worse yet, denied potentially life-saving procedures outright….
We, the undersigned, urge you and your colleagues to seriously consider the concerns we have outlined above. Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to come together to stand for compassionate care for all Americans, joining the chorus of “Free At Last” as proclaimed in Dr. King’s ” I Have A Dream” speech.” [Read the complete letter here.]
Considering these words, I invite people of prayer to hold steadfast to the dream as we pray that God will heal our land.
Dr. Alveda King is a pastoral associate and the director of African American Outreach for Priests for Life.
A Matter of Character by Brian McLaren
Three things struck me about President Obama’s speech to Congress on health-care reform. First, I was struck by his emphasis on morality. Caring for our poor neighbors — and even more so when they are sick — is indeed a moral concern.
Second, I was impressed by the way the speech addressed economic concerns. Like a lot of people, I’m concerned about costs and deficits — and I thought the President wisely pointed out that the rising costs of doing nothing are unacceptably high. The fact that we pay significantly more for health care than other wealthy nations — and are not more healthy, but less — tells me we have a lot to learn from other countries, both in treating disease efficiently and in pre-empting it with healthier living.
Finally, I was impressed by the mature and responsible character reflected in both the speech’s content and delivery. Even when he was called a liar by a member of Congress from whom we would expect more adult, civil, and professional behavior, the President modeled the grace and restraint that signal maturity of character. And similarly, the speech rightly emphasized that health care is a matter of national character. It takes maturity to integrate diverse concerns that are both long-term and short-term, personal and corporate, economic and moral. It takes maturity to integrate our traditional values of individual self-reliance and of commitment to our neighbors.
Our nation hasn’t displayed a lot of that maturity of character in my lifetime, and now, both in what we do and how we do it, is our opportunity to learn and grow.
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.
Looking Beyond Our Own Interests by Noel Castellanos
President Obama’s appeal to Congress and to the American people to stay the course and reform our current health-care system is a clear call for us to look beyond our own personal interests and to assure that 50 million of our brothers and sisters in this country without basic health coverage receive this basic human right in the richest nation in the world.
Rev. Noel Castellanos is CEO of the Christian Community Development Association, a network of over 500 non-profits ranging from grassroots, community based groups to large relief and development organizations serving under-resourced communities.
Contend for the Faith by Chandra White-Cummings
Health care, as is the case with most policy issues, is complex and does not readily lend itself to sound-bite solutions or cue-card commentary. Making headway will require serious and rigorous thinking, an expanded collective capacity to think beyond the confines of one’s own borders of concern, innovative perspectives, and finally, decisive action. A scenario that can greatly benefit from the involvement of dedicated, biblically-literate Christians who are prepared to bring the gospel to bear in this arena.
In the health-care arena, our primary responsibility is the same as in other spheres of life — to make disciples of Jesus Christ by teaching obedience to what He has commanded. How can this apply to health-care reform efforts?
First, we should teach people the importance of prayer. We are instructed through Paul’s first letter to Timothy to pray and intercede for “kings and all who are in authority” by asking God to help them; and to give thanks for them. Society desperately needs to learn dependence on a source outside itself for answers to life’s perplexities and issues. Questions about who should be responsible for providing health care to the poor, what is the scope of government’s responsibilities to its citizens, and how should systemic inequities that plague our health-care system be remedied cannot be answered by mere human wisdom. We need God’s help.
If Christians of all political persuasions, parties, and positions would conspicuously pray for God to help the President exercise prudence and execute justice in a way that will allow all of us to “live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity,” we can show the power of true unity to accomplish workable and practical solutions.
Second, we should teach the importance of a comprehensive standard of justice by standing for truth without compromise. One of the most hotly contested portions of the President’s proposed health-care reform involves allowing government funding of abortions. In numerous places in the Bible, we are told that it is wrong to murder, and also we are warned of the wrath of God against those who shed innocent blood. We are also reminded that God Himself creates human beings with identity and purpose, and that we are responsible to Him for how we use our bodies. Christians should, according to Jude 3, contend for the faith that God has entrusted to us. So we should oppose any provisions that could violate God’s principles of justice.
We can help people understand the unbreakable bond between justice and righteousness, and that if our President would act justly toward his constituents, he must also conform to God’s standards of righteousness. Caring for the poor is but one consideration for truly equitable and just health-care reform.
Third, Christians can contribute to the health-care debate by teaching the necessity of examining and addressing root causes of deeply entrenched problems. One of the hallmarks of Jesus’ ministry was His insistence on compelling people to deal with heart issues and not just outward behavior. In health-care, racism and discrimination, institutional corruption, and abandonment of personal responsibility have all greatly contributed to the mess we find ourselves in. For example, a May 2008 study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology estimates that the annual cost of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related conditions in this country is $2.25 billion to $4.6 billion. This economic toll on an already overburdened health-care system represents but one result of our refusal to submit our sexuality to the principles of God’s law.
Whereas many are still trying to keep a wall erected between private behavior and public intervention, Christians should be dispelling that myth and injecting notions of collective accountability and consequence into conversations about how to bring down the cost of health care.
The Bible clearly teaches Christians that we have a life-preserving, purifying, and illuminating role in society. Christian lives, lived boldly and faithful to biblical principles, can turn around even this seemingly impassable health-care dialogue.
Chandra White-Cummings is a columnist for UrbanFaith and director of the Black Life Issues & Action Network, in Dayton, Ohio, a non-profit program that works to educate, empower, and engage the African American community concerning issues that impact Black women, children, and families. She blogs at Life As We Know It.
Beyond Vilifying and Demonizing by Eugene Cho
In the health-care debate, I think it’s time we move beyond vilifying and demonizing one another as people who either monopolize compassion or completely lack it. No one wants anyone to die or to go broke. But we have a system that can be improved, right?
My perspective is simple, even though I acknowledge the situation is complex and the solutions even more so. As a country and government, I don’t believe we have to provide universal health care. While I personally acknowledge it is a moral issue from my worldview, I have to understand that people have fundamentally different views about the role and purposes of government.
So, while we don’t have to, it is amazing to consider that as a country and as the people of this country …
We can do this.
We don’t have to but we get to. Doesn’t this contribute to our collective idea of liberties and the pursuit of happiness?
Rev. Eugene Cho, a second-generation Korean-American, is the founder and lead pastor of Quest Church in Seattle and the executive director of Q Cafe, an innovative nonprofit neighborhood café and music venue. He and his wife are also the co-founders of One Day’s Wages — a movement to fight extreme global poverty. You can stalk him at his blog or follow him on Twitter.
Rights and Wrongs by Lisa Sharon Harper
“Healthcare reform is @ the right to life,” read my Twitter tweet. “Interesting … Many who claim to be ‘pro-life’ trumpeted choice over the past month.”
The tweet posted to my Facebook page and touched off the longest string of commentary I’ve ever had! One response from an old friend was particularly interesting. She identified herself as “a conservative” and “born again” and said health care should be kept separate from the “right to life.”
Health care is a basic human right, according to Article 25.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for it is directly connected with a human’s right to live (Article 3, UDHR). But let’s not get all technical.
Let’s get biblical.
In the Matthew 25 story of the sheep and the goats, Jesus Himself says an equitable health-care system is a mandate for those who call themselves Jesus followers.
Jesus refers to the righteous whom the Father has invited into the kingdom in verse 37. The word righteous is actually translated the just or equitable in character and action. The word equitable is about fairness and intrinsically refers to systemic justice. In other words, the ones who seek to create fair systems, the ones who level playing fields, will be the ones standing on the right with the sheep.
Now, which playing fields is Jesus most concerned about? In the same passage, He actually lays out a public policy agenda.
• The word hungry (v. 35) means famished in the Greek. It should lead us to consider “How just is our food system?”
• Thirsty means just that — thirsty. It should lead us to consider our water system: “How clean and safe is the water provided for the ones on the other side of the tracks in our towns, our cities, our world?”
• Naked actually means stripped in the Greek. It should lead us to consider “How do our systems affect those who have experienced the greatest injustices, those on the bottom, those who live with the greatest weight of our systems on their shoulders?”
• Sick means diseased. It should lead us to consider the justice of our health-care system. Does our health-care system offer an equitable distribution of health and life to rich and poor?
• Stranger means immigrant. It should lead us to consider the justice of our immigration system.
• Prison means prison. It should lead us to consider the justice of our prison system.
So, as Jesus followers we must seek to level the playing fields that govern public life. How can we, then, in good conscience, separate in our minds and our hearts the health of the living from the health of the unborn? We cannot.
Rather, we must consider our times. We must consider our history in the public square — I refer here to our leadership in the segregationist movement and the anti-women’s rights movements of the mid-20th century. In those days, evangelicals were ruled by fear of change. We were ruled by fear of the future. We were guided by the instinct to preserve the self. As a result, our mantra became: “Damn the one who would threaten my way of life!”
Today, we stand at another crossroads. God has given us another chance to stand on the right side of history. The evangelicals of the 19th century had their “come to Jesus” moment over slavery. They chose well. The evangelicals of the 20th century had their “come to Jesus” moment over Jim Crow and segregation. Many of them walked away from Jesus. This is our moment.
We must examine the proposals being put forth by Congress and examine the words of Jesus.
We must ask the questions: Is it just and equitable to make sure that every citizen of our nation has access to health-care that can save their lives? Is it unjust to deny access to health-care to those who cannot afford it? Would Jesus condone unjust health-care policies that have the ability to affect the lives of millions of people made in the image of God?
Then we must choose our side in the annals of history.
I choose health-care reform, and I am for the public option. Why? Because I am for a consistent ethic of life.
Lisa Sharon Harper is co-founder of New York Faith & Justice, a city-wide movement of churches, organizations, and individuals committed to following Christ, uniting the church, and ending poverty in New York. She also is the author of Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican … or Democrat.
Justice, Integrity, and Respect by Samuel Rodriguez
Our nation needs health-care reform that reconciles affordability and accessibility with the protection of life, conscience, personal and religious liberties. We encourage all members of Congress to debate with integrity, humility, and respect. Health-care reform is a matter of social justice driven by a moral imperative that is undeniable.
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez is president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.
Learning to Listen to Each Other by Gina R. Dalfonzo
One of the questions asked in reference to this forum was “What can be done to heal the ‘often bitter divisions’ that the health-care debate has exposed in America?” This was the question that really got me thinking. As Christians, we’re supposed to set an example of treating each other with love and respect even when we disagree. As Paul tells us, we are to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).
And yet, all too often, we fail to do this. I’ve seen Christians on both sides become mired in conspiracy theories and outright deceptions, leading to groundless accusations, hurt feelings, and anger. Of all people, we should realize the need both to seek truth and to treat each other with courtesy and respect.
Part of that effort involves clearing up misconceptions. Since UrbanFaith and Sojourners have graciously given me the opportunity to share my viewpoint here among my progressive Christian brothers and sisters, let me try to clear up a couple right now.
First of all, believe it or not, we conservative Christians actually do understand your concerns about the poor and uninsured. (I would hardly be working for Prison Fellowship Ministries if I only cared about the wealthy and powerful.) What we need you to understand is that we’re afraid that expanding government control of health care will only worsen the situation. Anyone who doubts the possibility of rationing or other abuses need only look at the government-run health-care system in Great Britain, where infants, the elderly, and everyone in between are having their health care withdrawn, not expanded.
The fact is that governments simply cannot afford to assume the bulk of the staggering costs of health care. And the more control that government has over our health care, the less control we individuals have over some of our most important and personal decisions. And yet many of us who are trying to point these things out get called whiny, racist, or worse.
For the record — though it shouldn’t even need to be said — it’s no fairer to lump everyone who voted against Barack Obama into one big group of racists than it would be to lump everyone who voted against Sarah Palin into one big group of sexists. Of course there are subsets of racists and sexists in these respective camps, and goodness knows they can be unpleasantly vocal. But to ascribe the basest possible motives to an opponent just because one disagrees with his or her ideas is the last thing a Christian should be doing. And this goes for both sides. We must learn to listen respectfully to what others are really saying, not to what our preconceptions tell us they must be saying and thinking.
More than anything, the topic of health care should remind us of the dignity and worth of each individual, and the significance of his or her opinions, needs, and values, in the eyes of our Creator. Without that shared belief to guide us, we will never get anywhere.
Gina R. Dalfonzo is editor of The Point and a writer for BreakPoint Radio, both ministries of Prison Fellowship. She’s also the editor of Dickensblog, “a blog for all things Dickens.”
Let’s Continue the Conversation
So what do you think? Did you see your perspective represented here? Do you agree or disagree with our panelists? Did we miss a crucial point of the debate? Let us hear your feedback now. Leave your comments below to continue the conversation.