An excellent op/ed from Bruce Walker at American Thinker on what far too many Christians (not to mention pseudo-pagans) have forgotten: that charity and good works falls within the purview of the private, not the American government.
Here's an excerpt:
Did Christ ever say his followers should ask Rome to do more for the welfare of its subjects? Or did Christ ask each individual Christian to personally do more to feed the hungry, to comfort the sick, to care for the widows and orphans, and to seek justice and mercy? Rome was a welfare state. The urban masses of Rome lived on bread and circuses. Roman power, outside Rome, build good roads, aqueducts, baths, bridges, libraries and undertook many other public works projects. Pax Romana was a very real blessing to nations who had fought wars around Mare Nostrum for centuries.
Despite the ways in which Roman power could be used to improve the world, Christ never looked to Rome to bring paradise or earth or even to be the agent of doing good in this world. Christ, rather, enjoined his followers to personally sacrifice and work for the rest of the world. He did not want Christians running for Roman offices to use the hated Roman taxes to "do good." His message was personal.
Our republic, founded by Christians who had a Biblical worldview, was not created to do what people should be doing themselves, as Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and numerous quotes from the Founders illustrate.
The article explores this very important truth in light of Mike Huckabee's eagerness to the use the power of the state to perform the good works that Christ admonished people to do.
Read the whole article here.
3 comments:
The government isn't Caesar; the government is us, the people. Why can't we cooperate through democratic institutions to do good works? Don't congregations act in a democratic fashion when they decide what to do with their assembled wealth?
But I suppose we should ban insurance companies as well. How dare a secular institution -- a profiteering corporation -- intrude on the proper purview of private Christian charity!
Yes, Cory, the government IS Caesar. Our government is one of the people, by the people and for the people, but it remains a separate and distinct entity--one that has roles and responsibilities that force it to operate differently than an individual can or should (e.g. government can and should arrest wrongdoers and punish them; we call that vigilantism when an individual does it).
There is no problem with insurance companies from the perspective of this discussion--though they have contributed to the problem of high health care costs by making cheap services more available and thus over-utilized.
Christians have a duty to help those in need in our society, regardless of whether other private secular organizations do so. But there is no prohibition, either Biblically or Constitutionally, against private secular institutions being helpful in society. In fact, they do so from the Christian example and the Christian influence on our culture.
But again, the Bible says the INDIVIDUAL is to help, and makes no appeal whatsoever for government to do so; this robs both the giver and receiver of any blessing from the act, and saps the act of its true restorative power.
And again, our government is a limited, enumerated one; by our Constitution, it can only act in ways that it has authority for. And it has zero Constitutional authority for charity.
If you want to re-write the Constitution to give it that authority, then the amendment process is well defined--go for it. But ignoring our Constitution undermines the stability of our government and our civilization--and erodes human dignity in the process.
Government programs are inherently inefficient. As much as 60 cents of each welfare dollar goes for administering the programs. Further, government programs breed dependence and even contempt of the recipents. Government cannot properly determine who is truly needy versus who is truly lazy.
When in private practice I refused to participate n the Medicaid program. I still saw poor patients but I could decide whether and how much to charge. I have been paid in vegetables, pork, pheasants (an interesting but long story), fence mending and roofing. In many cases I made house calls to poor families for free. Both the families and I benefited from this arrangement. I was blessed by the fact that I could help those in need, families appreciated the services I provided and were pleased to pay what they could, and fathers felt good about the fact that they could provide for their families even though they were poor. It was a win-win situation as they say.
Today, many welfare recipients are dependent, demanding, resentful and are robbed of any self-respect. Physicians no longer feel good about caring for many of these patients because they are the ones who demand the most, fail to do even the minimum to care for themselves and are most eager to sue if anything doesn't go exactly right. Reimbursement from the government is a joke and the paperwork is a nightmare.
I still do a good deal of charity work through my church and other organizations, but I am mandated now to accept all medicaid patients and, thus, most of the joy of giving in my everyday practice has been taken from me.
Cory, through most of my life there were no Medicare or Medicaid programs and hard as it is to believe, there were not elderly and poor people being tossed out of doctors' offices and dying in the streets.
I grew up poor and I remember my brother getting very sick and Dr. Bill came by the house to care for him. My mother gave the doctor a home-made apple pie as he was leaving. I know that was the only payment he received. Dr. Bill smiled and came back the next morning to check on him--no charge. That system has been replced by the resentful taxpayer, the cold-hearted bureaucrat, the over-worked and harried doctor and patients who place no value on the work and services of others and feel entitled to ever more.
Post a Comment