What Does Big Government Have to do with Jesus?

(continued response to Ms. Harper)

A "public option" won't limit costs. Medicaid and Medicare are already infamous among physicians for underpaying for the services provided to patients. Physicians adjust their rates to compensate, and other patients pay the cost through higher fees. If the "public option" does the same thing and arbitrarily limits payment for physician services, the costs will be shifted onto private insurers, who will be slowly forced out of the market, because they can't compete. Who will want to pay for the expensive A more cynical perspective would say that's the point of the "public option", though the politicians know that admitting it would be political suicide.

This is not apocalypticism (if that is a word). These are facts.

You're predicting dire consequences if we don't all fall in line and support your favorite politician. Those aren't facts, they're opinions.

It's about human lives, suffering in the here and now. It's about the image of God being crushed to earth and an opportunity to reform the system that governs us all into one that nurtures and protects the inherent dignity in everyone.

The U.S. government isn't the Church, and it isn't God. It's Caesar. It may be dressed in Lady Liberty drag, but that doesn't make it any different than any other Caesar: ambitious, vain and power-hungry. It's an instrument of force to be used sparingly. The Founding Fathers didn't intend it to "nurture and protect the dignity in everyone"; they left that to private associations of citizens--like the Church. When the state gets involved, libido dominandi takes over, and its holding a sword.

I don't think that's quite it. The problem isn't that she's misrepresenting the people to which she's referring; there are actual nuts out there who believe some of this stuff, like Jesus would be in favor of a certain size of government. The problem is that she presents them as the opposition, as if the opposition to a powerful central government that attempts to run large portions of the economy is solely made up of lunatics that can be laughed at and dismissed. No where in this commentary does she say something like "I realize the vast majority of Christians who oppose Obama's health care plan actually believe this stuff..." Her tactic is just as unhelpful to dialogue among Christians and non-Christians as the nuts who say "I'm here to stand up for Jesus. Government is getting too big."

Name a conservative religious site that allows comments to go unmonitored. Actually, I'd like to see any conservative religious site that allows any kind of opposing comments to be posted, commented on, etc. like Sojourners site.

Interesting point and I do see the difference between greed and self-interest you point out. Self-interest is still self-centered (as opposed to others-centered) however.

Herein lies the danger of conflating an economic belief system or a political ideology with a religious belief system such as Christianity, which requires sacrifice, putting others before ourselves, and the relinquishing of the "self" in order to completely submit to the will of the One who made us.

Getting back to the original point of Harper's article (which I wish she hadn't strayed from- it's a legitimate concern) about the person who equates Jesus with "small government" (Republican code for all sorts of reasons to be for or against things)- this person or viewpoint is not an anomaly. This sort of melding of government with religion has been going on within the right wing for a long time and really came to a disturbing head post-9/11 in the "Christian" Nationalism we witnessed in which Jesus was wrapped in the American flag and Christianity (or some version of "morality") was used to cover a multitude of sins committed by our nation. Support for war, torture, and terrorism was justified by this strange religion, which horrified many of us here in the US and most people around the world. Especially Christians. It was (and still is) a Christianity unrecognizable to many of us here and most around the world.

So, I don't think capitalism is necessarily bad, but nor is it necessarily good. Left unfettered, capitalism devolves into the hoarding of resources among the very few to the detriment of the many. And I'm in total agreement with you about regulations to protect us from the greed of the powerful few.

I'm not arguing with you, just thinking out loud. If we truly lay down ourselves, when we are God-centered, trusting in Him for our provision, trusting that He has a plan and a purpose for our lives, we have no reason for self-interest. Of course, His plan for many of us may be building a better mouse trap, providing for our families, starting a business, following a certain profession or vocation, or living a life of poverty- using the talents He has given us, but always giving Him the glory and using those talents to better the Kingdom of God here on earth.

Just to clarify, I don't believe that this view is representative of mainstream Christianity or of most Christians, but nor is it negligible, and that was my point about the person referenced in the article not being an anomaly.

Actually, most churches made statements against invading Iraq. It was the (misguided?) Christians, spurred on by the propaganda of the Bush Administration and Fox "News" who seemed to (and still seem to) support this greed and militarism disguised as Christianity.

I try to keep quiet about political matters around many of my Christian friends. It's really not my intention to get into arguments or engage in anything that could divide us along political lines. One of these friends is a wonderfully nice woman who has invited me into her home on many occasions, has taken me to church, and has just been a wonderful support. She is always glued to Fox News and from what I can tell, it's her only "news" source. She had invited me over for a nice dinner for some holiday- a couple of her other friends were there as well and this was right after President Obama had given the speech in which he had said that we are not a "Christian Nation." She specifically asked me if I had heard what he said (there was also something about him needing prayer- can't remember all the details) and seemed very disturbed by it. I know I should have just kept quiet, or found some other way to steer the conversation. But, as it often does, my pride kicked in and I replied that yes, I had heard the speech and that what he said was true. Although most people in this country profess the Christian religion (I think it's 80%?), we are not a "Christian Nation" and that our founding documents are secular. Someone else said something about the founding documents guaranteeing freedom of religion and I said, yes, and thank God for that. You can't find any two people within the same congregation to agree on all points of scripture!

Anyway, I was going to go into the whole history behind the Establishment clause and that England's kings were also head of the church and that if one disagreed with the king, you were not only a heretic but a traitor and subject to hanging. But I bit my tongue. My other friend who I had gone with described the little I said later as a "smack down in the middle of dinner." I felt really bad afterward.

I don't want to be divided from good friends, especially my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, over stupid political arguments, which is why I think I'm drawn to Sojourners and other people and organizations who build bridges.

Good thoughts and (other than your belief that people who belief that Jesus supports a small government aren't an anomaly but represent mainstream Christianity in the U.S.) I agree with them. I agree that if self-interest is all one is interested in, then that's a serious problem. I think we'd both agree there is nothing wrong with wanting to work at a job to make money to provide for a family. But if that's my sole objective in life then it's a problem. If my economic system turns into some sort of idol, then that's a problem.

I share your concerns about those who wrap Jesus in the flag and use the fact that we're a "Christian nation" to excuse all sorts of unChrist-like behavior such as torture and war. It concerns me whenever Christians become too intertwined with the workings of the government because there's a tendency to use the power of the government to force our will on other people. That is very unChrist-like.

but I don't believe that the vast majority of Christians who oppose Obama's health care plan don't actually believe this stuff. Unfortunately, the Christians I know who oppose Congress's health care plans (Obama doesn't have one yet) say all these same things, like they're reading from cue cards. It's very, very discouraging. I'd like to hear from 10 Christians who oppose Congress' health care plans and DON'T quote any Republican talking points, much less, Rush, Sean or Glenn.

Thank you for your definitions of the difference(s) between greed and self-interest. I agree with them, by and large.

My concern is that the definitional difference is too subtle for most of us to keep clear most of the time. I have observed quite often that "self interest" is a convenient rationalization for what is actually greed. No one likes to think of themselves as greedy, but when "self interest" is not only OK, but actually encouraged as the driving force of our economic system, then the lines are blurred easily.

I agree that there are greedy people in every economic system. But I suspect (without proof) that the problem is more and worse in an economic system that glorifies greed's next door neighbor, so to speak.

We need to exercise vigilence to continue making the distinction clear, and continue to discourage greediness.

Paul Krugman is a single economist, and obviously agrees with himself. His "keen sense of economics" is debatable, as well.

"You don't get people saved by threatening them with eternal damnation."

I saw "Thief in the Night."
I heard about hell.
I found out about Jesus.
I believed and was "born again!!"

The fear of hell is exactly what led me to Christ.

The fear of hell is what led the criminal on the Cross to ask Jesus to remember him. He was a criminal on his death bed. He knew he was headed for hell.

Jesus saves us. From what? Damnation. Hell. Separation from him, and all that is good. The knowledge of this does, and should, produce fear, that leads people to Christ.

I wasn't raised in a Christian home, and I knew about God, but I had no knowledge of salvation and the gospel message. Hearing about hell and wondering what would happen to me after I died is what led me to the Lord, and afterwards, I grew in my knowledge, my love, and my maturity. But the initial fear is what caused me to first examine myself and question anything spiritual.

Read Revelation and see if the fear you might experience doesn't draw you to the Lord. God's wrath is a reality, and those who don't know Christ have every reason to be filled with fear, and it's our realization of God's wrath and our need for salvation that draws us to Him.

Everyone's story is different, and God works differently in people's lives. So don't discount the things that God can use to bring others to Him.

"You don't get people saved by threatening them with eternal damnation."

I saw "Thief in the Night."
I heard about hell.
I found out about Jesus.
I believed and was "born again!!"

The fear of hell is exactly what led me to Christ.

The fear of hell is what led the criminal on the Cross to ask Jesus to remember him. He was a criminal on his death bed. He knew he was headed for hell.

Jesus saves us. From what? Damnation. Hell. Separation from him, and all that is good. The knowledge of this does, and should, produce fear, that leads people to Christ.

I wasn't raised in a Christian home, and I knew about God, but I had no knowledge of salvation and the gospel message. Hearing about hell and wondering what would happen to me after I died is what led me to the Lord, and afterwards, I grew in my knowledge, my love, and my maturity. But the initial fear is what caused me to first examine myself and question anything spiritual.

Read Revelation and see if the fear you might experience doesn't draw you to the Lord. God's wrath is a reality, and those who don't know Christ have every reason to be filled with fear, and it's our realization of God's wrath and our need for salvation that draws us to Him.

Everyone's story is different, and God works differently in people's lives. So don't discount the things that God can use to bring others to Him.

There's a big difference between "this stuff" meaning "I'm here to stand up for Jesus; government is getting to big", and talking points from the Republican party or these radio talkers.

I have yet to see a Republican talking point emphasize what Jesus would want in this debate. And while I don't listen to the radio talkers, I'd be surprised if Jesus' perspective on this matter entered their talking points either.

Also, there's nothing wrong with repeating talking points if you agree with them. It's not like people who support Obama's plan all come up with original reasons why they do so. They get their views from other people - their talking points.

I understand the fear of government getting too big, because I think we can all agree that power can be abused way too easily. But I never understood where in the Bible it says anything about how big or small the government should be.

I remember "Thief In The Night" also. Now there's "Hell Night" instead of haunted houses for Halloween. Conservative churches are putting on their own programs to "scare" kids into being believers. Actually my son might be involved in one but I really don't care for scare tactics.

I suspect you'll get a lot of posters backing the conservative movement with this article. You did a good job of telling it like it is.

Hi Letjusticerolldown,
I think a more urgent question is: "Which generation will be large enough and productive enough to pay if we don't act now to do what is necessary to bring costs under control and create a measure of equity within the heath system?" Economists agree, the cost of doing nothing or passing legislation with no public option to drive down costs would far outweigh the costs of true reform.

Since Ms Harper chose to engage in the typical "progressive" rhetoric of snide condescension and self-congratulation, with a good deal of self-serving distortion thrown in, I'll respond in kind:

Here's a cheat sheet for Christians to negotiate the Sojourners' world of crypto-Marxism/Christianity:

* Big Government = Jesus
* Corporations = the anti-Christ
* Big Government = political control of everything = the Beatitudes
* Private Industry = despotism, fascism, and all the isms you could possibly think of - except individualism and entrepreneurialism, of course. ("Progressive People" don't care about those things).
* Big government = compulsorily happy workers, organic wheatgrass shots, little red books, self-criticism, regulation and bureaucracy = Jesus.
* Private Industry = death camps, tribulation, all that is evil, and all that is exploitative.

This same compromised movement has recently proposed a ludicrous new version of the Bible, the Conservative Bible Project. Right now, they are working to change the scripture's language by taking out all hints of a "liberal" agenda and replace the words of Jesus, and Moses, and Luke, and James, and Amos, and Isaiah, and Micah, etc. with conservative-friendly lingo.

Wow, so the Conservative Bible Project is certified and approved by "this same compromised movement". Meaning, I assume, dispensationalism--but perhaps Ms. Harper's lack of clarity is intentional, as that makes guilt by association more effective. Inconveniently, this "movement" would include Darrell Bock at Dallas Theological Seminary, the Vatican of Dispensationalism. Oh wait, he voted for Obama, and certainly wouldn't approve of a politically guided scripture translation. But we shouldn't let real-life complexity prevent a good "progressive" sneer at the yokels.

Okay, can they get any more obvious? Can the faith get more twisted?

See Liberation Theology-- and those people are taken seriously.

Here's a Blue clue. It is possible to be a true-blue conservative and support monumental change that honors the role of government in civil society.

Here's a Red clue. It is possible to make social change while minimizing the use of government's coercive power. It's called the private sector.

Everyone agrees, we must reform the health insurance industry and control sky rocketing insurance costs.

The problem is not merely the health insurance industry, it's the cost structure of the whole health industry. When there is no connection between demand for a service and the price of that service, demand will skyrocket. Currently the majority of Americans have health insurance paid by an employer, and each insured individual has little motivation to control the cost of insured care at the point of consumption. They walk past the physician's Mercedes-Benz S-Class and the billion-dollar hospital with all private rooms without consciousness that they pay for it-- because for the most part, they don't. The people who pay are the employers or other policy holders who have no knowledge or control over the medical treatment decisions made by the patient. The minority who don't have health insurance pay the inflated costs of health care as set by the majority of the market.

Insurance companies don't care about the cost of medical care if they can maintain a healthy profit margin. As long as someone buys their policies and pays the increased costs, cost control is an unnecessary expense. If all your competitors carry the same costs--i.e. are required by law to provide the same services to policy holders-- the insurance company isn't motivated to minimize the use of those services. No one is making the difficult decisions that balance the cost and benefit of medical services.

Obama's plan does nothing to remedy this defect. Instead, it perpetuates the fantasy that we can afford unlimited access to medical care without regard to cost, and then hide the cost by spreading it to everyone.

The American business sector, the middle class, seniors, and especially the working poor will be broken by the health industry's escalating costs within the next generation if we don't act now.

Obama's plan doesn't do anything to limit the escalating costs of healthcare.

They must do whatever is necessary to conserve civil society - even if what is necessary is monumental systemic change

Let's start with Paul Krugman, whose keen sense of economics was recommended to me by a multi-millionaire who is also a Christian. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21kru...

Well, anyone who challenges sacred cows can be considered "inflammatory," so ...

I understand the fear of government getting too big, because I think we can all agree that power can be abused way too easily. But I never understood where in the Bible it says anything about how big or small the government should be.

Unfortunately it is true that Washington has become almost completely dysfunctional. There is a complete disconnect between the availability of means and the desire to achieve ends, if that could even be agreed upon.

The endless wars, 'The Long War," the "war that will last generations," the "war that will take a hundred years," all statements from the previous administration and an important and influential part of the Washington establishment which straddles both parties, are unsustainable.

What I call "The Endless War Theory." now supplanting any pretense to satisfy traditional Just War Theory, posits that our endless appetite for consumption and "more" is infinitely sustainable through worldwide military domination even if our financial position has eroded to that of bankrupts.

The impossible problem we do have is that given our priorities (which will not change short of near-total financial collapse) there are not enough resources to extend the health care status quo to all in the nation.

We have a nation of haves and have-nots. The haves are not going to share what they already have - in essence, cutting back their own benefits, in order to extend something to the have-nots.

The predominant mentality is "sauve qui peut" - we are more "French" than we would like to believe - everyone for himself or his own family.

Our national character has become that of equating freedom first with personal comfort, graduating to self-indulgence as an individual right.

Americans cannot be asked to sacrifice. That knowledge, essential to electoral success, was well understood when the Iraq invasion was put "off the books" and taxes reduced and the population urged to go out and shop - both government and people ignoring any concept that debt matters. Less than a per cent of the population volunteered to be put in harm's way in the elite's wars of choice - and if that's all it took to defend the non-negotiable American Way of Life, which involves consumption by 3% of the world consuming 25% of the resources, that was a "no-brainer" for almost all of us.

All this will only change, given we are a democratically-advised oligarchy now, when a majority of the voters are no longer "haves" but "have-nots."

Anyone who doesn't believe this should read in its entirety, Jimmy Carter's famous "malaise" speech of 1979. It was highly prescient of our current paralysis, but it was fatal for him politically. A candidate who told us instead we could have endless more on an upward arc was elected as he knew just what we wanted to hear - disregarding the ultimate consequences we now find ourselves in, it only kicked the day of reckoning further down the field.

As conservative commentator Andrew Bacevich observed, quoting Don Rumsfeld, unable to change the way we live, we must change the way the rest of the world lives, through military control of the globe.

This is quite on track, though I think of the health care debate in terms of Big government fears and fears of Big business. The right fears big government and the left fears big business. I think they both have a point, but in the health care debate there is no question in my mind that it is big business that is our worry. Because while there is always a chance that government could "come between me and my doctor" it is the insurance companies that actually do come between me and my doctor. If we are to reign in the power of business we need to balance that power with government. A public option is our only hope because only government is big enough to create the balance. Indeed the current economic crises has been caused by a couple of decades of weakening the power of government to balance business.

I understand and believe it a good question. But one question does not negate nor answer the other question. And at this point--neither question is being answered.
But fundamentally the failure to manage the nation's checkbook is a failure of self-governance. Ms Harper, I thought, was rather dismissive of "anti-big-government" rhetoric. When is govt simply too big? When the government is unfunded--it is too big. We become its servants and forever slaves as it sells itself to others. We have burned hundreds of billions we paid into the health system (medicare) on wars. We have not reformed what we have. We can see how much reform is actually happening in the current reform. It is simply coming in as a bigger expenditure with minimal outcome. And they are arguing they must have it in order to then reform.

The Dems like being cozy with pharma and insurance--while pretending to take it on. Is it really BIG INSURANCE that controls the debate--or is it BIG GOVERNMENT? Has CORPORATION implanted brain chips controling the thoughts and actions of Congress--or might it just be Congress itself--and even a nation that ceases to have self-control or self-governance.

A people with no sense of self-control will have great fear of bigger government. This is a spiral. Lack of control breeds the need of external control/intervention--and the fear that such control will be oppressive.

The collapse in housing was very telling to me. The nation (from top to bottom) is very afraid. If we just allowed ourselves to reap what we have sown we are deeply afraid. We will not allow government to allow us to reap the consequences.

Universal single-payer with consumers charged back for their basic care (excluding regimen of prevention/screening servcies) that can be paid out of HSA's -- with the government not spending a dollar more and providers freed to practice. (My proposal)

Hi huntebo,
You raise a great point. What is unspoken in my reflections above, but made explicit in the Conservative Bible project is the other side of the small gov't preference on the part of the Conservative/dispensationalist set. The Bible the Conservative Bible project is putting out is called the Free Market Bible. There you go.

Since Ms Harper chose to engage in the typical "progressive" rhetoric of snide condescension and self-congratulation, with a good deal of self-serving distortion thrown in, I'll respond in kind:

Here's a cheat sheet for Christians to negotiate the Sojourners' world of crypto-Marxism/Christianity:

* Big Government = Jesus
* Corporations = the anti-Christ
* Big Government = political control of everything = the Beatitudes
* Private Industry = despotism, fascism, and all the isms you could possibly think of - except individualism and entrepreneurialism, of course. ("Progressive People" don't care about those things).
* Big government = compulsorily happy workers, organic wheatgrass shots, little red books, self-criticism, regulation and bureaucracy = Jesus.
* Private Industry = death camps, tribulation, all that is evil, and all that is exploitative.

This same compromised movement has recently proposed a ludicrous new version of the Bible, the Conservative Bible Project. Right now, they are working to change the scripture's language by taking out all hints of a "liberal" agenda and replace the words of Jesus, and Moses, and Luke, and James, and Amos, and Isaiah, and Micah, etc. with conservative-friendly lingo.

Wow, so the Conservative Bible Project is certified and approved by "this same compromised movement". Meaning, I assume, dispensationalism--but perhaps Ms. Harper's lack of clarity is intentional, as that makes guilt by association more effective. Inconveniently, this "movement" would include Darrell Bock at Dallas Theological Seminary, the Vatican of Dispensationalism. Oh wait, he voted for Obama, and certainly wouldn't approve of a politically guided scripture translation. But we shouldn't let real-life complexity prevent a good "progressive" sneer at the yokels.

Okay, can they get any more obvious? Can the faith get more twisted?

See Liberation Theology-- and those people are taken seriously.

Here's a Blue clue. It is possible to be a true-blue conservative and support monumental change that honors the role of government in civil society.

Here's a Red clue. It is possible to make social change while minimizing the use of government's coercive power. It's called the private sector.

Everyone agrees, we must reform the health insurance industry and control sky rocketing insurance costs.

The problem is not merely the health insurance industry, it's the cost structure of the whole health industry. When there is no connection between demand for a service and the price of that service, demand will skyrocket. Currently the majority of Americans have health insurance paid by an employer, and each insured individual has little motivation to control the cost of insured care at the point of consumption. They walk past the physician's Mercedes-Benz S-Class and the billion-dollar hospital with all private rooms without consciousness that they pay for it-- because for the most part, they don't. The people who pay are the employers or other policy holders who have no knowledge or control over the medical treatment decisions made by the patient. The minority who don't have health insurance pay the inflated costs of health care as set by the majority of the market.

Insurance companies don't care about the cost of medical care if they can maintain a healthy profit margin. As long as someone buys their policies and pays the increased costs, cost control is an unnecessary expense. If all your competitors carry the same costs--i.e. are required by law to provide the same services to policy holders-- the insurance company isn't motivated to minimize the use of those services. No one is making the difficult decisions that balance the cost and benefit of medical services.

Obama's plan does nothing to remedy this defect. Instead, it perpetuates the fantasy that we can afford unlimited access to medical care without regard to cost, and then hide the cost by spreading it to everyone.

The American business sector, the middle class, seniors, and especially the working poor will be broken by the health industry's escalating costs within the next generation if we don't act now.

Obama's plan doesn't do anything to limit the escalating costs of healthcare.

They must do whatever is necessary to conserve civil society - even if what is necessary is monumental systemic change