While it may be the case (and I think it probably is) that a “public option” is a better option than having a nearly-completely corporation-dominated health insurance system that intrinsically ties insurance with employment, the concern of the church should not be this kind of immanent political move but rather finding ways to respond to the problem as the church. Mutual aid and relationship-oriented strategies, which the state is probably as incapable of providing as are corporations, but for which the church is uniquely suited, tend to be much more effective - and are arguably much more in line with the character of the New Testament and the Anabaptist traditions.

And that is generally a good thing.

Just wondering if you could define what you mean by Universal Health Care in this sentence?

“Universal healthcare is very good. Undoubtedly.”

And the inflation will disproportionately hurt the poor as it has been doing for quite some time.

Thank you for these additional views of concrete ways in which the Anabaptist based churches in the US are doing their part. I particularly appreciate the clinic you used to work for and the doctor in Ohio you mentioned. Mustard seeds that are doing amazing things. Makes me wonder, a bit, what more could be done (or, for that matter, is being done). Why are these types of things not being spoken about more broadly as examples of what the body of Christ can do? I know of another young doctor in North Carolina that, one day a week, his “paying” practice is closed and he runs a free clinic for those cannot afford care otherwise. These are the kinds of things that the body of Christ can do. What kind of transformed world would we live in if the body of Christ took these examples as the norm rather than the exception?

Joe:

Your point is my main point, actually and thank you for your input from “across the pond”. In no way do I say that the government can’t help. My problem is the reliance on government as THE answer rather than, as Luke pointed out above, that the church has AMAZING power to transform without needing government.

Tim:

I’m trying not to politically polarize this discussion. :-) But stewardship is also an important factor in this discussion. Someone pointed out in a comment on this same article in my home blog that the government has a LOT of spending that is questionable and inefficient. And both of the current parties in power are guilty of it. No one party is “snow white” when it comes to living towards kingdom ethics and, honestly, I don’t think one is better than the other. Is it good stewardship for the body of Christ to give money to an entity for this health-care initiative when that same entity has proven unreliable in many situations at proper stewardship of that money? The same could be asked for any government initiative. Would the money be better spent if it were kept in the hands of the believers for them to do with what the Spirit leads them to do?

History doesn’t lie.

So, if we’re sick we go to the state hospital. If we’re unemployed, we claim benefit. And so on and so forth.

And the main problem is that the State is not the Kingdom. Sometimes the State acts as on behalf of God - but normally, in my opinion, when the Church refuses to act on behalf of the Kingdom.

Universal healthcare is very good. Undoubtedly. But we have to ask ourselves what and whom we have abused for our government to give it to us. Who is failed by the system. Who is ignored, brutalised, forgotten.

And then we have to look ourselves seriously in the face and ask why we are not out there doing a better job.

If you look just a bit deeper, you will find Mennonites/Anabaptists at work on health-care access in the ways you think we should be working at it. Here’s an organization I’m involved in: Mennonite Medical Association (http://www.mennmed.org/). Also thinking about these issues is the Anabaptist Center for Healthcare Ethics. They released a study resource a few years ago that talks about healthcare access, scriptural perspectives, and the role of Christians in bringing healing & justice (from the Herald Press site: http://store.mpn.net/productdetails.cfm?PC=585)

For just one little example of what some Mennonites are up to, check out this amazing clinic (started by a Mennonite doctor & with a big base of Mennonite support/workers): http://www.mchcc.com/en/ (I worked at this clinic before starting medical school and am still challenged by the vision of justice & care that I encountered there, something that has been very lacking in most of my other experiences in the medical world.) There are very many ways that Mennonites are being salt & light - and just like you say - it’s not necessarily “formalized” at the highest levels. Just another small example: in my hometown in Ohio, the only practice of family doctors that accepts patients with medicaid is a practice of Mennonite doctors. The last time I visited my home church, one of these doctors made a passionate plea for people in the church to write representatives about health-care reform because of the effects he sees every day that lack of access has for his patients.

Having said that, I’d ask you to revisit the original Mennonite article & the health-care resolution not as an exclusive view of “this is all the Mennonite church has to say about this” but as simply one way Mennonites use our community voice to get behind important justice advocacy work. I agree that there is a long conversation to be had about the role of government and where/how Anabaptists should relate to government - but it sounds like you already agree that there is a role for justice advocacy for the church. If we all accept that the church should petition the government for justice, then I’d put health-care access for the poor as one of the central domestic issues that Christians should be advocating for.

I admit that I had forgotten about the Corinthian plan. That’s an excellent way for the church to start taking a hand in providing health care to those who otherwise can’t afford it as well as take the burden off those congregations who can’t afford it.

I would suggest that the church can then take it one step further. Could the Corinthian plan be expanded someday to encompass, not just ministers and leaders of underprivileged congregations but even the congregants in those congregations? For that matter, could the plan be expanded to provide care to those outside the Mennonite church? That is the crux of my argument, really. Which brings me to..

Denver:

I agree God can work through broken governments and what I think you miss is that I’m not saying DON’T support government reform. I’m not saying get in the way of the current efforts of reform. Neither viewpoint out there in the political arena is faultless in what it is doing, saying, supporting, etc. The church needs to advocate justice from all viewpoints and so we need to keep our voices out of the political mindset and work towards justice from a Christ mindset.

That said, I think that Jost’s article and the Columbus resolution was not strong enough in emphasizing what the church itself can do. The focus in both articles is in what the church can tell government to do. The underlying implication (and this is actually voiced by some people I’ve heard) is that the problem is not for the church to solve.

Perhaps that is not the point of Jost’s article, but it is what I’m hearing among many church members, and not just Mennonite, but globally, that the problem is too big for the church and so we must hand it off to a bigger institution. As I point out, I believe that is theologically unsound and counter to the core of our Anabaptist faith and the whole purpose of Christ’s church.

Maybe it’s too much for the Mennonite denomination alone… but Christ’s church is bigger than any one denomination. With the Lutheran church’s reconciliation approach in Paraguay, I think we are seeing a reunification, at least in faith, among all denominations. Maybe we can join together in the USA and, as Christ’s larger church, solve this problem?

For that matter, why does it need to be something formalized? I’ll quote my Mom here (and this may tell you all more about who I am) but after coming back from an Executive Board meeting some years ago, she voiced in frustration to my father “Those MEN! Why can’t they see that it’s not about the programs, it’s about the relationships?”

We can talk all we want about government programs and church programs and all those things. But what it comes down to is the efforts of the individual hands, feet, eyes, ears, and hearts of the people in the church, working in concert towards the Kingdom that Christ proclaimed. Yes, resource needs to be drawn from the formalized church, but it is the people and their relationships with their friends, neighbors and families that will change the world. The formal church will pass in it’s current form (it has not been static over the centuries) and our current government will as well. But the actual body of Christ will not pass.

Here’s my slant. I think the poor should have health care. In the media, there seems to be a strong ‘conservative’ voice opposing a government health reform. Besides the scare tactics about euthanizing the elderly, paying for abortions, or deterioration of care, it seems like the main argument boils down to this: It’s going to cost ME more tax money.

This seems like a selfish reason not to allow the government to provide the poor with health benefits.

Your post strikes me as a distraction from the point the author was making. 50 million Americans need insurance. As Christians, getting them care should be top priority.

I hear your post. Yes, Christians can do more. But getting in the way of government health care reform doesn’t seem like a step in the right direction from my vantage point.

I believe God can work through broken governments. I also believe that God can work through broken individuals and broken church institutions. I agree with you that we should NOT expect our government to God’s work for us. But I’m wary of Christians who seem to get in the way of letting God work through others (even broken government solutions).

According to your own admission (as I understand it), this “pressure the government to be better” stance is okay as long as it’s coupled with concrete action on the part of the church to “live out the mission of God” and “bear responsibility for the Kingdom.” But in this case, isn’t that what the Mennonite Church is doing? We’ve already launched (or are attempting to launch) The Corinthian Plan, which is the church’s attempt to do its part to care for those without health insurance. Sure, it’s a small piece, but it’s a start. Now, after that, comes the second piece — pushing the government to provide universal health insurance and care for “the least of these.”

I understand what you (and others) are ranting about — I’m just not convinced that you picked the best example.

The objection is not about whether or not we should ask our government to do something. Nor is it about whether or not the government has the ability to do something. Nor whether or not God empowers the government (see the Romans 13 argument by Alan s).

The objection is to the language in the article in “The Mennonite” that seems to imply that the only solution that is viable is a public (aka government) solution and that should be the focus of the Mennonite church’s resolution.

Perhaps I’m reading the article incorrectly but it seems that the resolution passed in Columbus was only concerned with pressuring our legislature towards justice rather than giving any indication as to what we, as the church, could do as the true Kingdom of God in this world.

Is it not possible that God can act beyond the church? And that when any agency acts to feed the hungry or heal the sick, God rejoices?

The link to the article in “The Mennonite” has been corrected. Thanks to Anna Groff for the info. The article was moved, apparently, from issue 12-14 to 12-15.

Now THAT is interesting… The issue (12-14) is still online, but I cannot find that article in it… really strange. I’ll have to check with Anna Groff and see what she says…

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:qwXY5jHpaQIJ:www.themennonite.org/issues/12-14/articles/Healing_hope_and_healthcare_reform+Healing,+hope+and+health-care+reform+-+The+Mennonite&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

It’s possible that a critical mass of disapproval has been effective.

I think what you’re pointing out is why I’m of the opinion that we should be the conscience of our government. Romans 13 does resonate well.

As mentioned, it goes against article 23 of the modern confession, but also article 6 of the Schleitheim (the Sword).

We should not be calling upon the sword to enforce programs via threats of violence.

As per calling on the Sword, I believe a Christian should only do so when asking them NOT to harm people. I understand the desire to plea for: fewer threats, less violence, less stealing, fewer restrictions on peaceable behavior, and the like.