The Bible reveals that Jesus wouldn’t have wanted the state to provide healthcare? Come on J.P.

Claire,
Welcome back to Band of Brothers. So nice of you to drop by.

Too bad The Scriptorium blog doesn’t allow commenting, or you could have commented directly on Moreland’s post. However, he does provide good food for thought when he says:

The state cannot show compassion in the arena of economic justice, because a necessary condition for compassion is that it is freely given and not coerced. The state forces people to conform to rules. It takes their money and gives it to others. But this is not the sort of compassion of which Jesus taught.

This is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard. So we are going to resist a good that the state might bring about by deluding ourselves that if they didn’t we ourselves would take care of the needs of the poor? Well, guess what. WE HAVEN’T!!! So enough with all this grumbling about the poor being taken care of agianst our will. Do you hear that? Can you perceive how wicked that is? My God, have mercy on us all.

Michael,

I think Moreland is right that there is nothing particularly compassionate about paying your taxes, even if those taxes are used to promote social justice. But that doesn’t mean that paying those taxes is an unloving thing to do, or that advocating for those taxes is unloving, or even that advocating for those taxes isn’t loving.

To me, a key problem with Mooreland’s argument is that it confuses love (or compassion) with being motivated to be loving (or being motivated to be compassionate). It’s hard to explain my point, but to get an idea, think of the type of person who always wants to be “the one who helps.??? There is something greedy about that sort of attitude, and the problem, I think, is that the person is aiming at “being helpful??? rather than “the good of others.??? Similarly, there is (I think) something wrong with aiming at “having compassion on the poor??? rather than simply “the good of the poor.??? (Another way of putting this might be to say that compassion, ideally, shouldn’t be the ultimate goal of your actions, but it is something good that you hit when you aim at something else—the good of others—in your actions).

If universal, government-guaranteed healthcare serves the good of the poor, it would be greedy and self-centered to oppose it simply because, if the government is providing it, we won’t get a chance to rack up compassion points. (Indeed, opposing it for this reason betrays a lack of compassion).

To be a little less tendentious: it misses the point to oppose universal healthcare simply because paying taxes that fund healthcare doesn’t count as compassionate. Paying taxes may not count as compassionate, but that’s not a reason to oppose a measure that would help people.

Of course, there may be economic objections to universal healthcare, or objections rooted in rights, but those are different topics.

Claire,

I couldn’t have said it better myself; and indeed I didn’t! Thank you for communicating a very hidden reality in a very clear way. The only problem is that some Christians don’t think logically. This is why I employ my own peculiar type of dialect. I am sure that God will accomplish his purposes through both.

There is some truth to Moreland’s argument, but I don’t think he wielded it very well. [The argument that we should only do good if we have the right attitude is false; God gives lots of commandments in the Bible and none of them are qualified with "but only if you do it out of a good heart."] My reading of the Bible is that the Church and State are both instituted by God, but with different functions. God instituted the State to provide protection and justice; He instituted the Church to provide grace and mercy. Perhaps we can never know all God’s reasons for giving separate roles to the Church and State, but one argument is this: one of the primary ways God intends for his Church to be distinguished from human institutions is through the love that Christians show—for each other, and for “the least of these”. In the past, Christian charity brought honor and glory to God’s name, attracted the spiritually hungry, and gave the Church credence as a voice of morality. If the Church resigns the ministry of charity to the State, it loses a powerful witness. Does this mean that God disapproves of universal health care coverage? I don’t think that’s the right conclusion. I think what it means is that as Christians we ought to remember the poor more than non-Christians, and help them in a way that shows our Savior as much as possible.

When I read Moreland’s post, it struck me as not having the amount of precision that I would expect from him.

I agree with Claire’s initial sentiment that she expressed when she said, “The Bible reveals that Jesus wouldn’t have wanted the state to provide healthcare? Come on J.P.” (emphasis mine). In addition, I think Ryan stated it well when he said, “There is some truth to Moreland’s argument, but I don’t think he wielded it very well.”

All-in-all, I have enjoyed and have been edified by everyone’s thoughtful responses on this thread.

For some further discussion on this post, you can also check out Justin Taylor’s Between Two Worlds: Jesus and Health Care post.