I read a post on Tony Cartledge's blog regarding President Obama's universal health care plan. I am not writing to debate whether or not government health care is a good thing. On a side note, I am amazed how something so important as government health care is being sloppily handled. Misinformation, no thought-out plan, and the urgency to run this thing through congress ought to concern you as it does me, regardless of what side you are on. It does not help that Republicans and Democrats are not working together on such an important topic. (I thought that was supposed to change this time around?) When will we ever learn?
However, on Dr. Cartledge's blog a friend of mine commented that he disagreed with covering illegal immigrants under the government health care reformed. Subsequently, a distinguished gentleman attacked my friend regarding his faith and whether or not he had done some serious reflection on the compassion of Jesus.
I want to ask whether or not you or I have done some serious reflection on the life, ministry, and the purposes of Jesus, justice and the kingdom of God.
First, justice is the concept of things being fair for everyone. We believe that the world is not fair, but God's plan with the coming kingdom of God is to create a world that is fair. All that is unfair will be eliminated. God is good, knows what's best, and his absolute sovereignty (the answer to the Lord's prayer) would benefit God's people, and ultimately the world, if its children would submit to his reign. Right now, things are not fair. One day, things will be.
At the heart of Jesus' ministry was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God and his role in bringing the Kingdom of God about. During that ministry, Jesus ate with the marginalized, healed their sicknesses, cast out demons, raised some of the dead, and exhibited compassion with those who were in need. He welcomed children. I would not argue that compassion for the marginalized is at the heart of Jesus' message.
Yet, somewhere in the middle of each of the Synoptic Gospel messages, Jesus sets his eyes on Jerusalem and a destiny of crucifixion. Followers, including many who received miracles at the hands of Jesus, and scores of those who witnessed them, began to fall away. Jesus was going to his death and they did not like this.
Why did Jesus go to die? I am sure that you have your church answers for Jesus' death. It was through the death of Jesus, and subsequent events on a mysterious "third day" that God would demonstrate the power of his kingdom, by defeating death itself. Things would be different for those who "trusted" Jesus. Things would be different in the world. Things would be different for the community of followers that would form following the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Now, let's look at a few things. There are some who believe that the mission of the followers of Jesus is to bring justice to all people of the world. They believe that the mission of the church is to make sure that life is fair for everyone. They believe that justice must be meted out in this life. When Jesus pointed his face to Jerusalem and revealed to his dull disciples the purpose for His coming, Jesus left behind many poor people, many children, many sick, and many hungry people. He did not achieve justice by removing Roman occupation, by equally distributing the wealth, or using his power and connections with the Father and the Spirit to make things right.
Why? The ultimate problem that the Kingdom of God manifested in the ministry of Jesus came to deal with is death. The Book of Ecclesiastes laments that kings and paupers, good and evil, inevitably all life, ceases to be. The Book of Job exemplifies that those who may deserve justice (from a human perspective) do not always get it in this life.
Let me say this: while Christians do bear a responsibility to work for justice, justice for all simply will not happen this side of eternity. Only through the fulfilment of the coming Kingdom of God can life be fair for all who benefit from God's reign. Justice will not eliminate the fact that there will be many who die before that justice can be distributed. Furthermore, health care can never answer the quandry of why one became sick in the first place, and the other did not.
No, our response to the message of Jesus, and the eventual coming of God's kingdom is compassion. If justice is equity without compassion, then give me injustice mingled with compassion. We cannot put the world to rights. God can. God will, in His time. However, we can demonstrate the compassion of Jesus to those who are suffering. Those of us who are not, are called to bear the cross of those who are. We are called to love people through relationships. We do not feed the poor from behind a soup kitchen shelf, but at their table where the dinner is steak. We love as equals, not as a project. We love not by providing a cheap health care system for the poor, but by gathering the sick as a community of faith, and taking them to the doctors, and providing for their care through compassion, not as a project.
Yes, we can work to make the world better, but that comes through Jesus' compassion infecting His followers by the Holy Spirit, and in turn infecting others with an unmeritted compassion. That compassion will include meeting real needs, learning to related to all kinds of people, and breaking down barriers. But the hallmark of that compassion is in the sharing of our motivation - we have experienced the love of God and a taste of His good future in Jesus Christ.
If this health care bill works, then great. I would be its supporter. If it does not, then so be it. But my compassion for others does not depend on legislation, but something deeper - the experience of God's love, the hope of a New Day in which many will participate, and trust in Jesus' message and method of compassion.
So, to the critic on Dr. Cartledge's blog, is universal health care the ultimate expression of Jesus' compassion? Those under that care will still die. Then what is next? My hope for the world, my community and family is in the God who has defeated death and sent the church as messengers to live out the gospel of Jesus Christ in deed and word.
7 comments:
Is equity an appropriate definition of the Biblical idea of justice? Is it really that, in the end, everything will finally be fair? Is biblical justice accomplished by everyone getting what they deserve?
When I read the prophets and the Gospels, even the Law books, a different picture emerges for me. The justice which I see come forth isn't the opposite of mercy: the two are the same. Justice is accomplished because mercy is made a reality. That is why Christ's death is a justifying act: mercy is justice, because by no means were any of us deserving of such an act. The only thing we are equal in is our deserving Hell. That is why the Christian's bearing of other's burdens is our response to Christ: knowing what has been sacrificed for us should make it impossible for us to live without justice/mercy.
So while I agree with the thrust of your post I disagree when you say, "If justice is equity without compassion, then give me injustice mingled with compassion." I just don't buy that compassion can ever be divorced from justice in a biblical sense. The later is only possible through the former. Ultimate justice only happens because mercy, because Christ, has prevailed.
Chris,
Maybe that was a poor choice of words, but I think that to say that our politics can bring about that justice is misguided.
Maybe you would disagree.
Too, would you disagree that, because of death we cannot bring about justice for everyone. With world population estimates approaching 7 billion and 25,000 dying of starvation every day, not to mention those who are sick, suffering genocides, etc.
When knowledge of the world was limited primarily to one's own community, and maybe some sense of national identity, then I can see more of a call for a just polis.
However, having more of a global idea of community seems to blow our minds at the injustice and evil at work in the world.
Thus, for justice, I can only hope for a miracle. As a Christian, I profess that I have tasted that miracle and desire to share that miracle with others.
Though we cannot do this for everyone, the church I serve paid for a church member's liver transplant 12 years ago. From her testimony, the love and compassion she experienced was greater than if the government wrote the check.
I am not against the health care plan. I just think that expecting the government, through our votes and taxes, to write the check limits our capacity and opportunity to show compassion as a "Resident Alien" community of faith. If this health care plan passes, great. For those who raise concerns, like my friend Jr did, I do not think that we should be questioning his compassion and commitment to Christ.
Thanks always for your feedback. I learn much from you! God bless!
Absolutely. When we look at the evil of the world, we cannot do anything but pray. That act in itself is an act of defiance and one which is meant to bring about justice/mercy.
Our politics have never been the answer. And while I think that the church can do a better job of manifesting itself as a precursor to the Kingdom reign of God (and especially it our local areas, as your church did), there is no way that even the church can do it all. In a monetary economy more so than a barter one (but still in both), the worldly systems create limits for what we can do with our resources. If my answer is not the church nor the government, the only solution left is God. As the Psalmist writes, "My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heavens and Earth."
"Justice for all" sounds nice but is an impossible ideal. Of course, nations need those impossible ideals if they are going to inspire people to worship them. So I can't blame them for putting it in the Pledge of Allegience (which I don't recite). In the sense of political justice, equity will be impossible because certain people can always get better lawyers. In the Biblical sense of justice, mercy will not always be possible because some people want equity and want what they deserve. So rather than pray the American prayer of "justice for all," I'll pray, "Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream."
Quite frankly, I hope that expressing doubts about the passage of this bill don't mean one doesn't know what Christian compassion looks like. I'm not all that big a fan of the bill and rather hope that it fails. I know that a better system can be devised than what is in that document. If it passes, then I hope it will do some good. But I don't pray for its passing. I pray, "Come quickly Lord Jesus."
I may just be full of myself, but I like my prayers better.
"Quite frankly, I hope that expressing doubts about the passage of this bill don't mean one doesn't know what Christian compassion looks like."
I hope that it does not come to this, either. This was the primary concern behind the post. My friend's reply on Cartledge's blog was cordial, but I cannot say the same for the attack on his faith by the Campbell professor.
By the way, it was not Dr. Cartledge that I was referring to, though he is a Campbell Prof. Apologies for any confusion!
And Tim,
I should say that I always appreciate it when you and I get to interact with each other. You have a keen mind and always manage to find the right questions. I've refined a lot of my own thoughts with your help. Thank you very much for that.
Tim,
I am posting my answer to the question you asked on my blog here in addition to on my blog.
I've wondered this before. And really, I think it depends on what we mean by Fundamentalist and what we mean by Biblical.
Let me work with Biblical first. Does this mean that such theology may be derived from a certain reading of the Bible? Does that mean that that is the only reading that can be derived from the Bible? Naturally, you and I are going to be more prone to answering the first way. Most Fundamentalists will be likely to answer the second, saying that only their way of thinking can actually be inferred from the Bible and everyone else is engaging in "hermeneutical gymnastics."
But what do we mean by Fundamentalist? Is it, at this point, primarly about a certain set of doctrines? Or is primarly an attitude with which one approaches Scriptures and life? I think that it has to be the second one. Because you get self-proclaimed Fundamentalists who are Calvinists and Arminians, Comp and Egal (though far fewer Egal's), pre-trib or post-trip or partial-preterist (I've never met an amillenial one, but they may be out there). Historically, it began as a set of doctrines. But *nobody* is arguing about those issues. In SBC blogdom, I have yet to come across someone who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, or the historical reliability of miracle accounts. Yet we are still split by Fundie's v Leftie's. The historical meaning has been lost in an attitude of anti-intellectualism, fear of questioning, and hostile response to alternative views.
So to actually answer your question, I think we can call Fundamentalist *theology* Biblical only in the sense that many of the things they advocate can indeed be found in scriptures when they are read a certain way. Can I call Fundamentalists biblical? No. I can't reconcile the attitude with scripture, or even common decency at times.
That is why I am willing to admit that the theology is Biblical. But I will still call myself Conservative and Biblical. I don't think that many "Fundamentalists" will be able to see that. Because of the attitude problem, I think many have such a high view of themselves that they have styled themselves as the standard for what is Biblical theology. For those of us with a little more intellectual honesty, I don't see the problem with admitting that their theology may be biblical while not conceding that it is the only option for what is biblical. We will just be hard-pressed to get the same consideration.
I think that the more important question is "Is *how* they read scripture biblical?" Is the attitude which they approach the Bible with appropriate? Are the methods (often proof-texting) appropriate to finding the meanings and relevance of scripture? Therein is, I think, the difference between the typical "Fundamentalist" and those of us who really should proudly proclaim we are Conservatives of a different stripe. The term "conservative" is not so sharply defined as I think many Fundamentalists would like it to be. And if we can arrive at decisive critiques of *how* they read the Bible, we may then be able to arrive at critiques of *what* they read in Scriptures that they are capable of hearing.
Post a Comment