Something to Share With Those In Need
The command to work is one of the Creation Ordinances, given to Adam before the Fall. The Lord said, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1.28) It is a command to all people of all times. Throughout Scripture, the fruit of a man's labor is repeatedly credited as a blessing from the Lord. "Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain." (Psalm 127.1) John the Baptist knew that "A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven." (John 3. 27)
Because of the Fall, God placed a curse on all Creation. Evidence of the effect of the fall on our Labor is obvious to the farmer, homemaker, artist, CFO, etc. No one disputes God's declaration that thorns and thistles, sweat and pain will accompany our work until we die. "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, til you return to ground," (Genesis 3.19) are some of God's exact words to Adam.
Yet despite the curse--thorns, sweat, pain and all--there is incentive to work. There is great incentive even to work hard. Proverbs is full of admonishment/warnings relating to work. The good worker described in this book of wisdom is he who plans, is diligent, cautious, ambitious, etc. It is not a guarantee that one's work will be met with plentiful physical return, but one is not a fool to expect it. Understanding that it is the Lord who grants (and therefore also withholds) all things, our Savior declared that it is just a right for a workman to receive wages that are fitting to his efforts (Matthew 10:10, Luke 10:7).
There are at least three reasons we are to work. Simply stated, one is to provide for our own physical needs. The second is to provide for the physical needs of our family. These are reasons that do not need to be expounded upon, for even pagans do them (1 Timothy 5.8). A third reason we are to work is so that we will be better able to share with others. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, taught those in the Ephesian church to "do honest work with [their] own hands, so that [they] may have something to share with those in need." (Ephesians 4.28) This aspect is one to be expanded upon for the purposes of this essay.
Who are "those in need" and what am I to share with them? How am I to share with them? There are myriad examples listed in Scripture of men/women/groups in need, and almost just as many examples of how their needs were met. A sample is below.
- In Luke 10 we read how the Good Samaritan provided for an the critical needs an enemy. He acted out of love toward a victim and was not coerced.
- The Israelite people were commanded to not reap their fields right to the edge, nor to glean what was left in the field after harvest. This was a way to provide for the poor and sojourner (Leviticus 19.9, 10)
- The Gentile churches took up an offering for the Jerusalem church, which was in poverty.
- In Matthew 5.4 (and Luke 6.30), Jesus commanded his disciples to "give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
- It is clear that it was the practice of the early church to care for widows. The office of Deacon was established primarily to care for the physical needs of the church of Jesus Christ.
I solicit the help of the reader to provide an instance in Scripture where a government was charged with the responsibility of caring for the poor, the widow, the orphan, or the sick (teaching the children is another topic for another day). The wisdom and foresight that the Lord gave Joseph helped the nation of Egypt to feed the "whole earth" (Genesis 41.56, 57), but at a price. It is presumed the nation of Egypt made obscene profits as a sole result of the leadership and shrewdness of a righteous man (it is also interesting to note that the line of the Messiah was preserved at the same time).
Is caring for those in need not clearly the responsibility of the family primarily, and believers secondarily? If the needs of the poor, widow, orphan, or sick are not being met by these two people groups, does the government even have a say?
There are many in this nation who are clamoring for the US government to take over the existing system by which the sick (and well) are cared for. If legislation is passed which dictates how much of the wages of which I am worthy are to be used to fund the medical care of my countrymen, I will be forced to pay it. We as believers are commanded to "be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13.1) The government to which the Roman church was subject happened to burn Christians as human torches. If I must pay taxes to fund a socialized system of health care, I concede that there are far more difficult acts of submission. Furthermore, Jesus commanded the Jews of His day to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20--listed three times, perhaps so as to quell any objection!)
My desire, simply stated, is for the US government to
1) Leave decisions regarding the payment for health care for in the hands of individual citizens,
2) Leave decisions regarding the amount of health care received in the hands of individual citizens,
3) Provide greater incentive for private citizens (both believers and pagans), to provide health care for those who cannot afford what is necessary for life,
4) Clean up a judicial system where frivolous lawsuits abound,
5) Stay out of the steroid issues in Major League Baseball (sorry, unrelated)
In short, I wish for Caesar to only ask for what is Caesar's, and to stay out of realms where God has not charged them with responsibility or authority.
7 comments:
Many thoughts.
I agree that the government should stay out of the health care business for both religious and political concerns. Sticking to the religious, I think citizens should partner with their churches to provide aid to those in need. Churches, being community based organizations, have a greater understanding of the needs of their congregants, and their immediate regions. However, we don’t hear this from our Christian, community organizing president, who feels the government is responsible for filling in gaps. The health care debate, as well as debates related to financial assistance and education, highlights our society’s unfortunate doubt for the role of the church and overreliance on the government.
However, I think lost in the debate are those, mostly rural poor, who are overlooked. These folks often work hard (harder than most Americans), pay the same taxes as most Americans, and yet, have fewer social services available to them. They live close to, or under America’s Mendoza line of poverty, yet do not receive assistance to offset the balance. Why? Because they live in communities where they support each other. This is a model the rest of America should follow.
In response to your closing line: “I wish for Caesar to only ask for what is Caesar's, and to stay out of realms where God has not charged them with responsibility or authority,” I would add that Caesar should remain to realms that they have charged themselves with such “responsibility and authority.” It is very important to remember that government involvement does not mean things will be better, more efficient or that the quality of care will improve.
A very interesting discussion. I need more to put more time into a response than I have right now but I have one quick question:
What is the Biblical purpose for government, and what are some concrete examples of the US government fulfilling those purposes?
Amen. I believe the government should be involved only in matters of Justice (courts, police, etc.) and national defense. The state "bears the sword", as Paul said it, and it ought not to do so in vain. But a nannystate? A risk-remover for irresponsible businesses? No way.
Scott, you would enjoy the writings of the Austrians and the Chicago schools of Economics, I think. Check out FEE (The Foundation for Economic Education) and Mises.org (The Ludwig Von Mises Organizatoin) for more. Here's a great sample from Frederic Bastiat, called The Law, for starters.
Great post, thanks.
An economics major friend of mine was once overflowing with love for his girlfriend (now wife) and said: "Erica Nye is to women as Ludvig von Mises is to economics."
Anyways, I would say that the church as instituted by Scripture (opposed to merely individual families or believers, who make up the church) is the primary means God has ordained to care for the needy. Not every single person in the church can fully fulfill the command to care for the widowed and orphaned, so the church as a whole (especially as through the office of deacon) is to carry out such work. I say that not to downplay each individual's responsibility (we as individuals still must help), but to inflate the Church's responsibility as a corporate body, not as a bunch of individuals who happen to attend the same church.
But this brings up another question in my mind - that of the command in Scripture for the church to take care of their own widows and orphans first, and then after they are taken care of, to go out into the world to care for the needy. If the church can't care for its own, how can it truly care for others? This raises questions of the validity of the American church pouring millions into short term mission trips, etc. I've seen many churches neglecting needy within their own flocks for the sake of their Holy Grails - be it Africa, urban "ministry," church growth, etc. Africa and urban folk definitely need help, but so do the people in our own churches and neighborhoods. They seem to be following the U2 model, not the Scriptural model.
Chris, I fully agree that the rural poor are the ones getting the short end of the stick, especially in Christian circles. The current fad is urban ministry, thanks in one part (of many reasons) to celebrity urban pastors (Tim Keller, John Piper, et al) who have made urban ministry cool - inner city outreaches, the homeless, etc., while others who are likewise in dire need in rural areas are neglected. It really hits a nerve with me. I have more thoughts and qualifications, but this is turning into a post unto itself. Sorry.
The argument that the government should not provide health care because it is the responsibility of the church fall short in my opinion for two reasons.
First, the same argument could (and should) be used against for-profit insurance companies who not only supplant the church in taking care of people but make a profit doing so. In fact, I think this argument is stronger when used against private health insurance, because the system rations care based upon income. Those who cannot afford care are trampled by the wealthy.
Secondly, there is no significant effort to set up a system in which the Church will provide for health care. It would take a monumental change in attitude on the part of most Christians to enact a plan such as this and sadly we are too self centered to make these changes. Thus I believe that this argument effectively uses a failure of the church to perpetuate that failure. We can't do it but we aren't going to let anyone else do it, so the poor continue to suffer.
My biggest concern is why is everyone so afraid of the government? Government is a creation of God and he says that all authority on earth is granted by his will. Surprisingly the government can actually do good thing for its citizen every once and a while. The government is not the boogieman.
I think there is Biblical merit for government to play a part in the care of the poor.
Most of the prophets (read: God's) problems with Israel and the surrounding nations is not only their worship of other gods, but how that has fleshed itself out in injustice and the oppression of the orphan and the widow. I can't point you to individual scriptures right now, but I will - I know for a fact that the prophets are riddled with them.
So yes, there is a responsibility for nations to be just, and part of justice - I would argue, perhaps, the major part of justice, is to be treating those less fortunate beneficently.
Your argument that Paul charged the believers in all the churches to help the poor in Jerusalem is right on the mark - however, this is contextual. The church IS NOT the state, and Paul is asking for support for the poor SPECIFICALLY in the church.
The question becomes not IF the government should have a hand in healthcare, etc, but HOW. In my opinion, the way they tend to handle it is a blatant breaking of the 8th commandment not to steal. Not because they are using taxpayer money to help the poor - they should do that in SOME WAYS. (and in fact, already do - the government is far more involved in the healthcare system now than I think many people understand...) But they are stealing a choice from, us that many in America are willing and able to make for themselves.
There are many aspects about the proposed healthcare takeover that bother me immensely - like the gov's ability to come into my home and tell me how to raise my children (yeah, its in there) or that at the end of my life they will decide whether or not I get the treatment I need based on a formula rather than my own ability to recover and live a normal life. Those among MANY others - the biggest being that they strip from me a choice to opt out...
I'm not sure I am utterly against the idea of universal health care. A good society should take care of its poor in a way that incentivises them to care for themselves if they can. But I am against THIS version, and any version that is not completely optional.
But just remember Scotti, we can't confuse the kingdoms. The State has a responsibility before God to execute justice, and that doesn't just happen in a court room. The church is given a speficic responsibility to care for the church FIRST, and then the world, and then as a means of sharing Christ with those who do not know Him.
Yes, government is God-designed entity. However that does not mean that its policies are God-ordained. As we observed in ancient Israel, government can, and will, use the call for “justice” to achieve its end, righteous or not. Government can invoke God, superficially, but not fully mean it.
Church-based health care is viable, mostly on a theoretical basis, and should not be discounted. It provides opportunity to offer care at a level specific to its community, as opposed to applying a manualized form of treatment on a national-level. It would be necessary to have standards and rules of ethics, of course. But individual communities would be able to dictate what is necessary and beneficial for their growth much better than a larger national government ever could. The physical health needs of Phoenix, Arizona differ from that of those in Clairton, PA. The mental health needs of Washington, D.C. (riddled with Type-A, overly anxious individuals) differs from State College (or other college town). A church-based model creates opportunity to address these individual concerns.
There is a spiritual-evolutionary argument in this as well: church communities caring for the physical and mental health needs of their surrounding areas can help sustain their own vitality and religious legitimacy. It provides face to what many believers already know, that the church, by-and-large, truly cares for those in- and outside its walls. This can only serve to attract greater interest in the church, bring people to God, and further strengthen the body of Christ.
Many churches already offer medical clinics, counseling centers, or both. This model would be a more structured approach, without the unnecessary interference of government. I’m sure many Christians would rather see their tithing monies go toward something they can SEE, such as a clinic in their town, as oppose to FEELing as if they are funding an abortion on another coast. If there is an alternative, Christians would go for it. I’m not saying such a model is, and would be perfect. I just think it would be better for communities.
Post a Comment