On an earlier post on healthcare, the following line was posted, “The Popes and Patriarchs ought stick to matters of faith and leave economic and healthcare decisions to experts in the field.”
This is a classic line that is used whenever the Church’s teachings hit close to home. In fact, exactly the same line has been used in exactly the same way by liberal-progressive types. In an earlier post, I had mentioned that the Church is truly pro-life, but that neither the Left, and definitely not the Religious Right in the USA are pro-life. Both the Left and the Right in this country are against life in some of their stances, and one can always tell on which subjects when the line above is quoted.
Or to put it another way, neither the Religious Right nor the Religious Left truly intend to let either Scripture or Church speak into their politics, rather they wish to co-opt the Church to support their views. Another blogger comments:
I have a few words of caution, followed by a few thoughts. First, we need to be careful when theology and politics start getting mingled. While I think they usefully inform each other, mixing the two has a mixed record. Passionate religious arguments were mustered both for and against slavery and civil rights. Now we see them brought to bear on other social issues—and, unsurprisingly, people’s theological conclusions very often match their political predispositions. And their political predispositions often match the dispositions of those around us. In this, as in other things, it is tempting to find religious support for what we’re already doing. The interesting spots theologically are not where people reaffirm their already held beliefs but where people’s beliefs change.
People tend to choose a theological emphasis that lines up with their existing interests. Liberation theology, which looks carefully at the subversive political implications of Jesus’ actions, is much more popular in South America than it is here. We don’t want Jesus to do anything subversive against Rome because we are Rome. Portions of the U.S. have been inclined to focus exclusively on the more metaphysical side of things. If we interpret Jesus’s very real physical actions as sort of an extended allegory and focus on personal spirituality, maybe we don’t have to worry about the very real suffering of those around us or ask whether we’re in part responsible for it. This view that the church is a pure bar of ivory soap that rises above the mucky waters of the world was perhaps most pronounced toward the end of slavery when the injustice was quite clear to so many people and many within the church concluded that just or unjust, this sort of thing simply wasn’t the church’s business.
Did Jesus’ ministry involve political activism or was it just about metaphysical personal transformation? Hilker is entirely right that he is not the conquering King figure some were expecting in a messiah, though that does not mean that his ministry and actions were without profound political implications—particularly when the church and the state were linked as they were in first century Judea. Since I just cautioned about jumping to simple and convenient conclusions, I won’t do it. But I will point out that the Romans didn’t execute you for preaching personal salvation.
I like his expression about some seeing the Church as being, “a pure bar of ivory soap that rises above the mucky waters of the world. . . .” We are not that, but neither do we specify exact laws and/or economic/social systems. But, we do have a responsibility to speak into this world system. It is correct to say, “. . . that does not mean that his ministry and actions were without profound political implications. . . .” So, yes, we are against abortion and euthanasia. We are also against the death penalty, given how the justice system is currently run. We are against wars that do not fulfill the ancient definition of a just war, as spelled out by some of our saints and synods, regardless of the justification attempted by the governments of this world. And, yes, finally, we are against any economic system that either results in a purely statist control or that is laissez faire in its approach towards things such as wages, etc. And, yes, as quoted earlier, we are against any system that allows some to be without adequate healthcare, regardless of the reasoning. In taking those stands, we anger both the Right and the Left.
===MORE TO COME===
Jesus spent no time on politics. None. he could have talked about the evils of Roman rule but He did not.
I like the two kingdoms doctrine which leaves the things below to be worked out by us, and by government, in the best way we possibly can unattached from the things above, which is the realm of the church.
As far as politics go, a pox on both their houses.
In this life, there will be no reat, no peace and no victory. That is the theology of the cross and it is the truth, not matter how many people promise differently.
That you would want the government involved in any way in your health care is amazing to me. I don’t want them meddling in any area of my life and I do not understand anyone that would think it’s a good idea. I’m just astonished sometimes at the independence that some people would willingly turn over to government bureaucrats. You may one day find yourself at an advanced age, and the worldly health system you so willingly support, may decide that you are no longer productive and will have a way to put you out of your misery. This will be the result of your definition of “pro-life”.
So, I am assuming you are going to give up your Social Security and Medicare benefits? Since both are government run health care and since both are forms of welfare (they are not self-supporting but rely on constant infusions from the government) you must in good conscience give them up.
But, again, you are assuming the worst possible results. You are assuming that some form of euthanasia will become legal. But, there are many countries that have government supported health care that have never gone there. You are picking only the worst case scenarios plus you have to assume that the citizens of this country would allow and support that approach.