Originally posted June 29, 2012, at Country Preacher’s Corner. Republished with permission of the author.
My bishop wrote a pretty decent article about Lutherans and health care. He ends with the comment, “We are pro-healing and pro-health care.” I cannot disagree. The church indeed is called to healing and called to the care and concern for neighbor, including our neighbor’s health. Our theology leads us right squarely to that conclusion.
But the question my bishop doesn’t address theologically is the health care law passed by our country and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. He says, “Requiring insurance for those who require medical care (all of us) spreads the cost out. Is it the right thing to do? Some Lutherans believe so. Some do not.” Later, he comments, “We acknowledge that there are diverse viewpoints within the church. We celebrate that diversity.”
Well and good. Those statements are, in the words of Luther himself, “most certainly true.” However, the devil is in the details, as one would say.
What does Lutheran theology teach about compassion, charity and giving? That is the ultimate question when it comes to the church’s role in society.
Now, I am not trying to turn this into a political discussion. The U.S. Congress can do what it wants within the limits of the Constitution. If it deems that people should be compelled to purchase health insurance or pay a fine, that is their choice. My concern is whether such a thing should be affirmed by the Lutheran church.
As I see it, it should not. Why?
It goes back to the Lutheran understanding of giving. As Lutherans, we believe salvation has been given to us as a gift with no strings attached. This is the ultimate meaning of grace.
Because of grace, we are no longer under the discipline of the law (Galatians). This means all things are lawful for us (Corinthians). We are free to choose to do as we please with our time, talents and treasures. No longer are we bound by the Old Testament understanding of the tithe. No longer are we required to give to the church as an obligation. No longer do we need to feel compelled to give to anything. We are completely and totally free from that requirement of the law.
So why give? If it’s not required, why give to the church, to charity, to social organizations or to anything for that matter?
We give not because we have to, but because we find it a joy to return to the Lord what we have first been given. We give because Christ saw our need and gave to us; therefore, we imitate him as we see our neighbors’ needs and give to them. We give because we are stirred by the love of God in our hearts, not because of the fear of God or the fear of punishment. That’s the Lutheran understanding of giving. Plain and simple.
Now, let’s apply this theology to the center point of the health care law passed by our Congress and signed by our president. Does it follow this theology?
Not hardly. In fact, it’s completely the opposite of Lutheran theology. It compels one to use one’s money. It punishes if money isn’t spent in that fashion. It’s completely and totally legalistic and not based upon grace-based living. As such, this portion of the law isn’t Lutheran, and neither do I believe, Christian.
What I find most intriguing about the support given by some Lutherans to this provision is that those same Lutherans who celebrate this compulsory act in the goal of attaining universal health care would rail against a congregation requiring its membership to tithe.
While Lutherans are indeed supportive of health care and healing for all, our theology does not support compulsory giving toward it.
Find a link to Kevin Haug’s blog Country Preacher’s Corner at Lutheran Blogs.
You might also like to read:
Lutherans, the Bible and justice
When people can’t afford time off
Called into community
Applying Lutheran Theological and Stewardship principles in this way to argue against PP/ACA is a nice example of a Red Herring Fallacy, specifically a Strawman.
"We are free to choose to do as we please with our time, talents and treasures." No you aren't. You need to abide by the law of the land, or have you forgotten Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms?
How do you know that the Holy Spirit wasn't working though Obama and Congress to get PP/ACA passed? It certainly was a miracle that it survived the partisan Supreme Court with which we are now "blessed."
Start from this point: as Lutherans we want all people to have access to affordable medical care. Can you argue against that statement? (hopefully not!)
Now the tough question becomes "How do we accomplish this?"
Personally, I'm a huge proponent of single payer so that the administration of Health Care becomes non-profit. It's working great in other countries despite what you hear from the Koch Brothers' propaganda machine. But this isn't going happen any time soon; so I continue to pray that our leaders find a way to work with the current law.
By the way, you have some wonderful thoughts on Stewardship. Might I suggest you write on that topic instead? Or a least offer up a logical argument against PP/ACA for us to consider.
Kevin,
How would you respond to the claims made in James 2 regarding justice for the poor? I've always understood the law that Paul talks about to be more concerned with cultural practices (like dietary laws) than with issues of economic poverty and injustice.
JP
Kevin,
For all that I wish Obamacare had been struck down by the Supreme Court, I completely disagree with the theology you're promoting, nor do I think it is properly "Lutheran". You're completely confusing the Law/Gospel distinction which is the "Lutheran" hermeneutic.
You argue that Obamacare should not be affirmed by the church because it is "completely and totally legalistic and not based upon grace-based living." Your statement is true of each and every single law in the country. That's the nature of law in the first place, and specifically God's Law as well. God's Law always "compels" and "punishes". Look at the 10 Commandments as the great example of God's Law. They don't invite, they command.
It's true that our Christian freedom allows us to face the Law without fear of its (deadly) consequences and through that freedom, we can finally do what we ought without compulsion. However, because we are all sinners, we require the Law, which is why anarchy doesn't work particularly well in this life.
The role of the government is specifically to order society in this life, and execute the First Use of the Law. It's ability to do so even to the point of murder is affirmed in Romans 13 among other places, and later by the Augsburg Confession. Obama, the Supreme Court and the rest of the government are wielding the power of God's Law as government is expected to. I disagree with Obamacare because I see it as twisting God's Law, but their authority to enforce Obamacare does come straight from God.
Grace, and the Gospel, only enter in where one is seared by God's Law. Before you can look for any grace, you have to ask how Obamacare reveals unbelief or brings suffering and death.
Phil --
Marty Luther here…Read your reply to Kevin and was especially interested in the following:
"How do you know that the Holy Spirit wasn't working though Obama and Congress to get PP/ACA passed? It certainly was a miracle that it survived the partisan Supreme Court with which we are now "blessed.""
Just wanted to let you know that I just spoke to “JC” and he confirmed that Obamacare was not an act of divine intervention. Actually you have to look a little further south (and I’m not talking South Chicago) for the origination of this “blessing”. But I digress.
Now I know the leadership of my namesake church (ELCA) and its partner -- the National Council of Churches (NCC) -- fully support this newest government takeover http://www.ncccusa.org/news/120628supremecourtaca.html (as an aside they seem to have more faith in big gov than the big guy lately). But I just want to remind all Lutherans that the US already owes close to $16T ( http://usdebtclock.org/ ) and this new spending is going to totally bury your kids and grandkids with even more debt. Imagine if your parents and grandparents had done that to you. Better not let the youth groups get wind of this!
If the church and the NCC want all of this big government control, spending and influence they should lead by example and drop their tax exempt status and help pay the freight. Think of it as an "Obamatithe".
That would put them in the top 1% in my book.
We’ll gotta go. The wife is cooking up a big batch of Lutefisk. Believe it or not it actually tastes good up here. Keep up the great posts, Phil!
Marty ;-)
Wow, Marty, I would have never taken you for a Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh derp promoter. But I guess it's just a natural progression from your anti-Semitic later-years crazy talk.
So, do you think that all should have access to affordable health care? Do you really think Obama is doing the Devil's work? (in ref to your "further south" comment which seemed to be completely devoid of the grace you talked so much about in your early years).
Kevin Haug and his responders evidently are not familiar with the ELCA social statement on health care titled: Equitable Access to Health Care for All. It is the guiding document for official positions in the ELCA on health care reform and has a number of pertinent things to say about this conversation.
Under the heading of 'A Matter of Love and Justice' the statement reads: "Justice requires giving to each person his or her due. Health care is the kind of good most appropriately given on the basis of need. Too often, however, health care is distributed on the basis of merit, social worth or contribution, marketplace value, or ability to pay. Many forms of access benefit some people at the expense of others.
Justice also requires a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of health care. This does not entail treating every person identically, but treating similar cases similarly. Currently, despite programs to provide at least some care for the poorest among us, the percentage of people with health insurance is lower as income declines."
Under the heading 'Moving Toward Just Access,' a portion of the statement reads: "Taking personal responsibility for one's health and the health of others can meet some health care needs and provide care in important ways, however, many people are left without adequate care due to uneven distribution of health care and wealth....Markets of health care services may contribute to improved quality and efficiency, but they also may contribute to increased costs, unequal access, and both over-and under-treatment. Governments are shaped by political pressures and often function with inefficiencies; yet as representatives of all citizens they have a particular responsibility to ensure society's obligations to promote the general welfare. This includes such areas as security, education, and health care. Public health measures ensuring safe water and food, or preventing and limiting outbreaks of infectious diseases are so "communal" that they can be done well only from a governmental base with adequate tax dollars."
We can trust that the writing team for the social statement composed of Lutheran theologians and gifted lay people involved with health care provision or social ministry organizations dealt thoroughly with the theological and stewardship matters that seem to be a problem for Rev. Haug.
'Meeting Our Moral Obligations' concludes with the note that: "Achieving these obligations of love and justice requires sacrifice, goodwill, fairness, and an abiding commitment to place personal and social responsibilities of love and justice above narrower individual, institutional, and political self-interests. For some people, this may mean paying more in taxes or in direct payments to assure that everyone has care."
The "Obamacare" 'mandate' that has many people up in arms is not so far distant from the social statements closing reminder that "we in the ELCA recognize the biblical obligation that each person in society is responsible for the neighbor. No one of us is free to pass by "on the other side" and assume that governments and other parties will take care of all obligations for health care. We therefore seek to participate in and supplement health care services out of love for all people who are in need."
The 'mandate' is not a bad way to ensure that we all take responsibility for our own health care and, in that way, help ensure that there is a viable market for insurance coverage for all.
Implementing Resolution #8 of the social statement "challenges all congregation, synods, social ministry organizations, public policy advocacy ministries, other affiliated organizations of this church, and all church wide units to carry out the substance and spirit of this statement, and to intensify their work with Lutheran Services in America and various ecumenical, interfaith, and secular groups in pursuit of its commitments.
So I'd say that your bishop knew what he was doing in writing in support of the current health care reform.
You can never be just by being unjust. Where is the justice in coercing one person to give to another? Although it has been tried countless times in history, charity by force is neither loving nor just. It might make some feel good about themselves to force others to do what they feel is the right thing, but that is just works righteousness with someone else's works, and nobody's righteousness. The church no right or moral authority to "require" a secular society to do that which the church can't even make it's own members do. Why doesn't the church require it's own members to give 10%? For that matter why doesn't the ELCA require every member to cover one poor person's health care? It is astonishing to me see so many Christians "require justice" from the unsaved, secular society and leave their own ranks to voluntarily do justice. Do not demand of the unbelievers that which you refuse to demand of yourselves.
Rev. Kevin Haug has given us an excellent analysis of the health care issue from a Lutheran perspective. Luther emphasized Christian Freedom. The Kingdom is to be brought about by love; not by force, by coercion from the State. As Davey said, this has been tried.